Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 211 of 479 (561258)
05-19-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jaywill
05-19-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Transfiguration?
Jay, quite a few hours ago I responded to your last post to me. It was quite in length. Yet now, I cannot seem to find it. I sent it. Apparently, its lost in limbo somewhere. My apologies.
Instead of going over the entire post again, just two quick points.
Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
Jay writes:
"All the tribes of the land" meaning the Jewish tribes living in the Holy Land to which Christ will descend.
Where does it say all the Jewish tribes? Also, are you admitting that it refers to his return?
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man at the transfiguration.
Now, please explain who died before they could see this event.
Again, sorry again that my post disappeared. I just do not have the time now to go over them all again.
Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2010 9:46 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2010 8:07 PM hERICtic has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 212 of 479 (561297)
05-19-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by hERICtic
05-19-2010 4:17 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
Jay, quite a few hours ago I responded to your last post to me. It was quite in length. Yet now, I cannot seem to find it. I sent it. Apparently, its lost in limbo somewhere. My apologies.
Instead of going over the entire post again, just two quick points.
That has happened to me. An hour's labor lost in a second.
Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
Jay writes:
"All the tribes of the land" meaning the Jewish tribes living in the Holy Land to which Christ will descend.
Where does it say all the Jewish tribes? Also, are you admitting that it refers to his return?
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:
" And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son.
In that day there will be a great wailing in Jerusalem, like the wailing of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
And the land will wail, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;
The family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves.
And all families that remain , every family by itself, and their wives by themselves." (Zech 12:10-14)
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.
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man at the transfiguration.
Quote the passage properly please.
Now, please explain who died before they could see this event.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by hERICtic, posted 05-19-2010 4:17 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by hERICtic, posted 05-19-2010 8:44 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 213 of 479 (561301)
05-19-2010 8:20 PM


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.
"And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was simeon. And this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consulation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
And it had been divinely communicated to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the little child Jesus for them to do accourding to the custom of the law comcerning Him, he received Him into his arms and blessed God and said,
Now You release Your slave, Master, according to Your word, in peace; For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all the people.
A light for revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel. " (Luke 2:25-32)
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.

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 214 of 479 (561304)
05-19-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
05-19-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay, quite a few hours ago I responded to your last post to me. It was quite in length. Yet now, I cannot seem to find it. I sent it. Apparently, its lost in limbo somewhere. My apologies.
Instead of going over the entire post again, just two quick points.
Jay writes:
That has happened to me. An hour's labor lost in a second.
That sucks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
Jay writes:
"All the tribes of the land" meaning the Jewish tribes living in the Holy Land to which Christ will descend.
Where does it say all the Jewish tribes? Also, are you admitting that it refers to his return?
Jay writes:
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 mourne 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:
" And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son.
In that day there will be a great wailing in Jerusalem, like the wailing of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
And the land will wail, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;
The family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves.
And all families that remain , every family by itself, and their wives by themselves." (Zech 12:10-14)
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.
Ok, it does seem to fit. Its a moot point, but I just was not sure where you grabbed that idea from.
You didnt answer my question though. Are you admitting it refers to his return?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man at the transfiguration.
Jay writes:
Quote the passage properly please.
I paraphrased. Thats exactly as how you said it should read. You stated over and over that it refers to the transfiguration. If that is the case, then the way I quoted it is 100% accurate. Yeah, I paraphrased....but you equated "coming into his kingdom" with the transfiguration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, please explain who died before they could see this event.
Jay writes:
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.
You left out the crucial parts.
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. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
Nowhere in this scripture does it state the "coming" was the transfiguration. What it does state though is that he received glory from god. You're misreading it.Notice the key word: BUT. In other words, Peter is stating the stories of the power and return of Jesus are true NOT bc he has returned BUT because they were on the mountain and god spoke about the greatness of Jesus. In other words, god himself is the evidence! God is speaking! 2 Peter only confirms that he was on the mountain when god spoke about Jesus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you believe its the transfiguration, Jesus said someone standing in front of him would die before the transfiguration.
Who died? Its a simple question.
Jay writes:
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.
LMAO! In other words, you're ignoring the words of Jesus.
No one died. So it cannot refer to the transfiguration. Its either that or its a mistake.
You're only glossing over the error!
If Jesus is refering to the transfiguration, which of his disciples died? Even worse, as I stated, there are THREE criteria. The transfiguration misses all three.
None of his disciples died.
The transfiguration did not have angels present.
Mankind was not rewarded.
Let me ask you this:
If Jesus was to return 40 years later:
Would some of his disciples have died?
Does Revelation confirm when he returns it will be with angels?
Does Revelation and Matthew 25 confirm that when he returns he will reward men?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2010 8:07 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jaywill, posted 05-20-2010 6:36 AM hERICtic has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 215 of 479 (561372)
05-20-2010 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by hERICtic
05-19-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
You didnt answer my question though. Are you admitting it refers to his return?
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.
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man at the transfiguration.
Jay writes:
Quote the passage properly please.
I paraphrased. Thats exactly as how you said it should read.
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 stated over and over that it refers to the transfiguration.
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.
If that is the case, then the way I quoted it is 100% accurate.
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.
Yeah, I paraphrased....but you equated "coming into his kingdom" with the transfiguration.
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.
Now, please explain who died before they could see this event.
Jay writes:
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.
You left out the crucial parts.
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. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
Nowhere in this scripture does it state the "coming" was the 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"
What it does state though is that he received glory from god. You're misreading it.Notice the key word: BUT. In other words, Peter is stating the stories of the power and return of Jesus are true NOT bc he has returned BUT because they were on the mountain and god spoke about the greatness of Jesus. In other words, god himself is the evidence! God is speaking! 2 Peter only confirms that he was on the mountain when god spoke about Jesus.
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.
LMAO ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by hERICtic, posted 05-19-2010 8:44 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by hERICtic, posted 05-20-2010 8:24 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 216 of 479 (561373)
05-20-2010 7:05 AM


Copied by permission from Christian Think Tank, of Glenn Miller
First, the verses Luke 9.27, Mark 9.1, and Mt 16.28:
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (Lk)
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark)
28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew)
Now, some have seen these to be a mistake by Jesus--that He honestly believed that He would return before the death of all His disciples, but the data is decidedly against this understanding of His words.
These verses are generally understood to refer to the Transfiguration event which IMMEDIATELY follows them in EACH gospel narrative. (Remember, the chapter and verse divisions are NOT in the original text--they were added for referencing centuries and centuries later.) In this event, Jesus takes three of his disciples ("some standing here") up a mountainside, where he is transfigured before them into His exalted form (similar in appearance to that of Rev 1), talks with Moses and Elijah about the coming Crucifixion(!), and is spoken about to the three by God the Father in the Shekinah Glory (i.e. the cloud that accompanied the Israelites in the post-exodus journey).
It may be important to note :
the Kingdom of God is EQUATED with the kingdom of the "Son of Man";
Moses (the original covenant administrator) and Elijah (the forerunner of the Messiah) are definitely figures associated closely with the Messianic kingdom;
Jesus is called 'the Chosen' in the Lucan account (a definite messianic title);
in Peter's remembrance/retelling of this in 2 Peter 2.16ff,:
he specifically is discussing the kingdom (vs 11-"the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"),
uses the term "majesty" of his appearance in vs. 16--a term closely linked to royalty in usage (TLNT:II.457f; cf. "her divine majesty" in Acts 19.27),
uses the same images of "power" and "coming" (vs.16) used by Jesus in the Mrk/Mtt passages.
So, William Lane (NICNT: in.loc.):
"The transfiguration was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the parousia, when he will come 'with power and glory' (Ch 13.26)."
So, the evidence seems to support the notion that Jesus was referring to the Transfiguration event, which was a fore-shadowing of His return in glory and power later.

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 217 of 479 (561483)
05-20-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jaywill
05-20-2010 6:36 AM


Re: Transfiguration?
Jay,
You last post, the paste job...did exactly what you have done. Ignored the issue. First, its NOT generaly understood to refer to the transfiguration. Apologists claim it does bc of the problems associated with it. Second, nowhere is the actual problems addressed.
No one died. The transfiguration did not have angels. Mankind was not rewarded.
So I'm not exactly sure what you point was with the past job. Miller is an apologist. Of course he has to state it refers to the transfiguration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didnt answer my question though. Are you admitting it refers to his return?
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.
Jay writes:
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.
It is very frustrating debating you Jay bc you never actually seem to address key issues. You gloss over them. You also play games.
We both know Revelation is not refering to the transfiguration. You admit it refers to Jesus DESCENDING to the tribes of Israel.
Yet when I ask you point blank if this refers to his return, you cannot actually answer the question.
Jay, does it refer to the return of Jesus? Yes or no?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man at the transfiguration.
Jay writes:
Quote the passage properly please.
I paraphrased. Thats exactly as how you said it should read.
Jay writes:
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.
You misunderstood me. You claimed the "son of man coming in his kingdom" IS the transfiguration.
I only switched out the wording. I substituted the "son of man coming in his kingdom" with "the transfiguration.
You claimed they were one and the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
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 ?
Holy geez! Jay, you said Matthew 16 refers to the transfiguration! Not me, YOU!
I said over and over, with evidence, it cannot. You claimed over and over it does.
If Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." refers to the transfiguration...then paraphrasing it is 100% accurate! What arent you understanding? This is YOUR argument.
If "coming in his kingdom" does not refer to the transfiguration, then you're contradicting yourself.
YOU made the claim.
I only put it as I did, to make in more concrete, to show you the absurdity of the statement.
Matthew 16:28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the transfiguration.
My statement is 100% accurate according to what you have been stated. But grew tired of the word semantics you throw around, so I simplified it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated over and over that it refers to the transfiguration.
Jay writes:
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.
You truly lost me. I am not the one claiming its the interpretation, YOU are! Your entire argument is that it refers to the transfiguration.
I seriously hope you're not taking verse 27 to mean the transfiguration, then seperating verse 28 to mean something else. You're obliterating the context.
Make up your mind Jay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
If that is the case, then the way I quoted it is 100% accurate.
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.
You truly have lost me. I have asked so many questions that you have bounced around that I tried to make it as simple as possible. Nothing I have done is a trick or dishonest. YOU told me over and over that scripture in Matthew 16 we are debating refers to the transfiguration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
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.
So I'm correct. You're plaing apologetics and butchering the context. You're taking verse 27, seperating it from verse 28.
Pete makes no such claim that there were eyewitnesses to the coming of Jesus. None. In fact, EVERY instance of Peter using "coming" refers to the event which has NOT happened yet.
1 Peter 1:5
who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
"Coming" as in Jesus has not returned yet.
2 Peter 1:16
We 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.
Peter again states the "coming" has not occured yet BUT he has see the majesty of Jesus.
2 Peter 3:4
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
Again, the "coming" refers to a future event.
2 Peter 3:12
as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
"Coming" again refers to an event that has not occured yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
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.
I see what you are saying. I read it another way. Both our interpretations seem to go either way. The problem, is that using other verses in Peter, he makes it clear the "coming" has NOT happened yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
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 ?
Bc it was eight days later! Those words are vital! They're important. But they do not have to do with the transfiguration.
I keep asking repeatedly where were the angels? Where was mankind rewarded? Who died? You cannot answer a single affirmative to any of those occuring at the transfiguration!
Its crazy to even think it refers to it. Look at the context:
Jeuss states: He will die. He will be resurrected. He will save souls. Angels will appear. Mankind will be rewarded. Some standing here will die before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.
CONTEXT. One follows the other. By throwing the transfiguration in there, it obliterates the context.
This is why I keep harping on Revelation! It clearly states Jesus will return WITH his angels. To REWARD mankind. That he is COMING on clouds.
COMING always refers to the return of Jesus.
Jay, I "laughed" bc we are having a debate, I point out an obvious problem....and your response is basically you dont care!
Its a crucial issue and your solution is to ignore it.
I was trying to take this step by step, but you're ignoring so many key issues...I have to jump ahead.
FACT: Jesus will return on clouds as per Revelation.
EVERY instance of "coming on clouds" in the gospels refers to the return of Jesus.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, then I'm going to show you how it all ties together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jaywill, posted 05-20-2010 6:36 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by hERICtic, posted 05-21-2010 6:31 AM hERICtic has not replied
 Message 219 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2010 9:18 AM hERICtic has replied
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2010 10:35 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 218 of 479 (561531)
05-21-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by hERICtic
05-20-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
Matthew 25: 31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Jay, does this refer to the end times, when Jesus returns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by hERICtic, posted 05-20-2010 8:24 PM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2010 10:18 AM hERICtic has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 219 of 479 (561553)
05-21-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by hERICtic
05-20-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
You last post, the paste job...did exactly what you have done. Ignored the issue. First, its NOT generaly understood to refer to the transfiguration. Apologists claim it does bc of the problems associated with it. Second, nowhere is the actual problems addressed.
The article took the "issue" head on.
No one died. The transfiguration did not have angels. Mankind was not rewarded.
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.
So I'm not exactly sure what you point was with the past job. Miller is an apologist. Of course he has to state it refers to the transfiguration.
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.
You didnt answer my question though. Are you admitting it refers to his return?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by hERICtic, posted 05-20-2010 8:24 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by hERICtic, posted 05-22-2010 9:47 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 220 of 479 (561555)
05-21-2010 9:50 AM


You truly have lost me. I have asked so many questions that you have bounced around that I tried to make it as simple as possible. Nothing I have done is a trick or dishonest. YOU told me over and over that scripture in Matthew 16 we are debating refers to the transfiguration.
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.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 221 of 479 (561557)
05-21-2010 9:58 AM


"The Son of Man coming in His kingdom" = (Transfigutration + Second Coming at the end of the age).
Heretic asks again and again and again "Does Revelation 1:17 refer to the end of the age ?"
Yes, I think so. I suppose he feels that that somehow makes "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" not include the Transfiguration.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 222 of 479 (561558)
05-21-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by hERICtic
05-21-2010 6:31 AM


Re: Transfiguration?
Quoting a Matthew 25:31-46 Eric challenges
Jay, does this refer to the end times, when Jesus returns?
What it refers to is told in verse 31:
" .... WHEN ... the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, AT THAT TIME He will sit on the throne of His glory."
And in Matthew 16:28 "the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom" refers to the transfiguration and the Second Coming of Christ.
Now who do you want to believe, Heretic or the Apostle Peter ?
Let's go back once more and see what Peter said about the experience of the transfiguration:
"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.... while we were with Him in the holy mountain." (See 2 Peter 1:16-18)
Readers, you decide who you want to believe. Heretic says that the transfiguration CANNOT be the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, even in preview or in minature. He thinks that Revelation 1:17 and Matthew 25:31-46 prove that.
Peter on the other hand associates the POWER AND COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST with the event that they eyewitnessed "while we were with Him in the holy mountain".
You decide whether you think you should believe the Apostle Peter who was one of the standing eyewitnesses to the transfiguration or whether Heretic has the inside story on it that we should trust.
I'll stand with the Apostle Peter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by hERICtic, posted 05-21-2010 6:31 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by hERICtic, posted 05-22-2010 1:21 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 223 of 479 (561560)
05-21-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by hERICtic
05-20-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Transfiguration?
FACT: Jesus will return on clouds as per Revelation.
EVERY instance of "coming on clouds" in the gospels refers to the return of Jesus.
There are 28 verses in the 16th chapter of Matthew.
The phrase "coming on clouds" does not appear in the 16th chapter of Matthew.
You do have in verse 27 this - "For the Son of Man is to come in glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will repay each man accoding to his doings."
If the Son of Man comes in the glory of His Father on the mountain for some living disciples to see and some few thousand years latter He comes in the glory of His Father WITH the holy angels judging the living nations, is it ONLY the second phase "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"?
How did Peter feel about it? He included the transfiguration as the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ even though the judgment of the living nations did not occur at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by hERICtic, posted 05-20-2010 8:24 PM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-22-2010 10:42 AM jaywill has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 224 of 479 (561655)
05-22-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by jaywill
05-21-2010 9:18 AM


Re: Transfiguration?
No one died. The transfiguration did not have angels. Mankind was not rewarded.
Jay writes:
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.
Jay, I'm not twisting anything. You are. In fact, you are misreading it on purpose. If I said you can eat the pizza, have SOME of the slices....everyone, including yourself knows this means you are not to eat all the pie. If I said, here is 10 bucks, I want SOME of the money back, everyone, including yourself knows this means not all of the money wikll be spent.
Jesus says SOME standing here, which means SOME will die.
In no other instance, would you ever use the excuse that SOME means everyone outside of this debate. It would never happen. Why? Bc thats not how it reads.
SOME standing here shall not taste death....means 100% that not everyone will live.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay writes:
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.
See, thats poor thinking. You have priorites...I dont. I have only what the scripture states. Your priority is to have an error free gospel. It matters not to me if its error free or not. The point is, we should be basing our debate upon what scripture states, not what we want it state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didnt answer my question though. Are you admitting it refers to his return?
Jay writes:
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.
This is why it gets frustrating debating with you. You seldom DIRECTLY answer a question.
In message 202, I asked you "yes or no" if Revelation speaks of his return.
In post 203, you answered that "it could reads as "tribes" across the land"
So you didnt answer my question.
In 214 I asked the same question again.
In 215 you addressed it without answering the question again.
In post 217 I asked it again. Same question: Yes or No?
In 219 you stated you answered me. Where? You are very difficult to have a conversation with. I have states numerous times you bounce around, create strawman arguments and give half answers.
Show me where you answered me question.
In Revelation 1:7 does it refer to the return of Jesus, YES or NO?
I wanted to answer all your posts...but I have to run and take my daughter to "acting" lessons. Then son baseball, then back to her for soccer.
So be patient. Let me address your points before you respond.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2010 9:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 225 of 479 (561666)
05-22-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
05-21-2010 10:35 AM


Re: Transfiguration?
Jaywill sorry to interupt. Would you read post 146 in the fellowship thread. If you do not have time I will understand
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2010 10:35 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by jaywill, posted 05-23-2010 8:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024