'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Heretic continues: I expect now to see specific evidence of "twisting". Anyone can make vague accusation. No evidence yet of "twisting" and Heretic makes another vague accusation which more reflects on his own laziness. Okay, now we have Heretic's alledged evidence of twisting. I do not recall "around the corner" as a biblical phrase at all. The word "near" sounds familiar.To this charge of twisting the meaning of the word "near" I would again bring Heretic back to the apostle Peter's words. And this is perhaps the third time in 2 Peter 3:8,9This is written to disciples. Heretic would probably read it as "Please let this one thing ESCAPE you". Since Eric (aka Heretic) proudly announces to the public that he intends to spread "heresy", the twisting is more likely to come from his side.
Why else would he fore-warn the Forum readers? Of course throughout this debate Heretic would insist that there is delay. My attitude about the longer than expected "nearness" of Christ's second coming is in tune with the Apostle Peter's attitude.However, Heretic still has a weak case about the word near. Jesus said that when we see certain things happen, then His coming was "near." The "nearness" is in relation to certain happinings. "So when you see all these things, know that it is near, at the doors." (Matt 24:32)Has Heretic, me, or the 12 disciples for that matter ever see the sun darkened and the moon not give its light and the stars fall from heaven (v.29)? These are some of the things Jesus said when they are seen know that the end is "near" Now we have seen "false Christ". And we have seen "false prophets". However, these signs of the end being near probably were accumulative. He probably didn't mean that any ONE of them was the signal but accumulatively all were the signal of nearness.The issue with the word "near" in Matthew 24:31 and 32 is that Christ cost certainly "near" all of the preceeding events and not necessarily "near" to any one of them. I am not sure where the word "soon" appears in the discourses of Jesus. But while the Heretic accuses me of ignoring passages he fails to pay adaquate attention to some.Jesus ALSO says a few things so that the disciples will not regard the end as coming prematurely. " ... but the end is not yet" (Matt. 24:6)"All these things are the beginning of birth pangs" (v.8)(Notice, not the END of birth pangs, but the beginning) " ... he who has endured to the end shall be saved" (v.13)This cannot be overlooked as a preparation for long term endurance. "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole inhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (v.14)The "nearness" or "sooness" of this climax cannot be definitely defined. "tribulation ... such as has not occured from the beginning of the world until now, ..." (v.21)This is difficult to pinpoint when this tribulation is. There have been many sore tribulations in history. Therefore the word "near" remains ambiguous. There have been many sore tribulations. How can we insist that anyone of them alone was THE tribulation that signaled the end times? "But learn the parable from the fig tree: As soon as its branch has become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near." (v.32)Many serious students of prophecy believe that fig tree is a symbol here of the nation of Israel. Israel became a nation again in 1948. All we could say was the reformation of Israel as a nation could be a sign not of the end necessarily but that "summer is near".Myself personally, I think the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Israel will be an even stronger indication of the "nearness" of the second coming of Christ.The bottom line here is that Heretic has no way to insist that "near" has come and gone. The verses above indicate that He was concerned that the disciples would not prematurely anticipate the end of the age.How else do you understand the phrase " See that you are not alarmed, for it must happen' but the end is not yet." (v.6)Possibly the expected Him to come before they died. But Peter was a disciple and when Jesus made known to him that he was about to die, Peter left exhortations to the disciples along the line of the epistle of Second Peter .Who do you think has the better inside story of what Jesus taught, Heretic or the Apostle Peter? This is now repetition ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I don't feel to repeat rebuttals over and over again endlessly.Heretic's case is simply not as sturdy as he thinks. Repetitions already discussed. Let me skip down a bit. The phrase "around the corner" is not in the dialogue of Jesus as far as I remember.We do see the phrase "at the doors" in Matthew 24:33. See verses 32-34. Jesus says when they or we see "all these things" know that it is near, at the doors.We have to see "all these things". He does not say anyone one of these things by itself. And "all these things" includes some things not seen yet like the celestial phenomenon mentioned in verse 29.Skipping down ... If traveling by horse and buggy maybe not. If traveling by jet plane, maybe yes. Whether apologetics at its worse or not, my interpretation is more in line with what Peter wrote. Remember Peter was the virtual leader of the 12 disciples and was one of the ones to witness the transfiguration.Who do you trust to have the clearer story on what Jesus meant, Heretic or the Apostle Peter?Not being able to deny that Peter, near to his death, encourages the disciples to remember that time, in the eyes of God, is not as we may always regard, Heretic has no recourse but to call Second Peter a forgery.I will not re-answer anymore of Heretic's comments right now.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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And since the Lord Jesus warned of false prophets and the apostles warned of false teachers, I in turn have deleted some of your lies.

The latter words of Jesus after His resurrection are to be taken into account also: Heretic will most predictably ignore these words of Jesus for the following reasons:1.) They are spoken by Christ after His resurrection which Heretic probably does not believe happened.2.) They do not indicate that the disciples were told specifically about the length of "seasons" or the "times". Since these are left up to be unknowns to the disciples, it robs Heretic of his argument that the disciples knew.3.) He doesn't consider the preaching of the gospel to the whole inhabited world or to the uttermost parts of the earth to be important to the fulfillment of prophecy.4.) He doesn't think the Divine Father has the right to set in His own providence the timetable of the second coming. Heretic wants to dictate to God based on his interpretation of Matthew 24,especially how the word "generation" should be interpreted.In conclusion:The disciples ask the resurrected Jesus "Will you at THIS TIME ... ?" (bring in the Messianic kingdom on earth) . The answer of Jesus is basically something like this:"That's the business of the Father as to WHEN. You preach the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth."And that has been what has been going on for two millennia. And we have no idea how long it must continue. But if you ask me, I think the reformation of the nation of Israel could be a strong indication of the second coming of Christ.And if the temple should be rebuilt, that is to me an even stronger sign of His second coming. I have no idea whether that will be in my lifetime.I hope Jesus comes back as soon as possible for He is "the desire of the nations" . But my desire is not my knowledge of when the event will occur. And neither was it Peter's or John's or Paul's.Heretic's comments about some of my comments being not relevant or moot points just reveal to me his own sloppiness, laziness to really study all relevant matters, and lack of familiarity with the Bible.I will accept the charge of sometimes preaching. His case is too weak to refute either my discussion or my preaching. 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.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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You're still doing it Jay. You're bouncing around giving scripture which does NOT deal with the issues at hand.Nearly every single point you raise is a strawman argument or out of context.I present scritpure to show the end times were to occur during their lifetime.Jay, please.....give me one verse that shows the end times are far off. Just one. I keep asking.....yet you have yet to give one.Do you admit that every word used, that I have shown, denotes a short period of time?Does "near" mean "far"?
Does "at hand" mean "far away"?
Does "last days" mean "two thousands years later"?
Does "soon" mean "much, much later"?Does Jesus admit that when he returns he will being angels with him?
Does Jesus admit he will reward mankind when he returns?
Does Jesus state he is coming on clouds?In Matthew 24 who is Jesus addressing?I want honest answers Jay. Prove to me the words used to denote short periods of time really mean long periods.Show me how "you" when facing and addressing his disciples means those people today.Show me when Jesus states "you' to his disciples and says they will witness the a cataclysmic events it does not refer to them or that the "event" is not the end times.Show me who is suppose to run to the moutains and flee Judea.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heretic continues:Jay, I quickly read over all your latest posts. All follow the same format. You twist the meanings of words, I have backed up all my assertions. No word used by Jesus or the authors denotes a long period of time. The mere fact you keep stating that the words used by the authors do in fact show long periods of time shows you are twisting the meanings.I keep asking for a word that shows a long period of time. So far, nothing.The word "near" is used to explain how far off the end times are.
You have twisted it to mean far off.The word "soon" is used to explain how far off the end times are.
You have twisted it to mean not soon.I could keep going. EVERY single word used denotes a short period. Prove me wrong.I have asked you before to do so, you have yet to. Why? Simple. There does not exist a single word when refering to the end times that they are far off in the future. Not one.------------------------------------------------------------------------------you ignore context and you create so many moot points....it makes your posts needlessly long. My previous post I must have given at least 6 or more examples of you bringing to the table long comments with lenghty scripture, which have nothing to do with the debate. Thats only in your last post. I have mentioned this nearly every post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only an apologist can take "near" to mean far. "Close by" to mean far off. "Around the corner" to mean many blocks away. So let me understand this. I gave you probably more than 15 verses which denote short periods of time and you ignore every one except the one I made a mistake on. "Around the corner" is actually taken from the few Christians sites I frequented. Its not in scripture, so you are correct. My apologies. Those sites mentioned how the end times are "right around the corner" and when I was responding, I put it in. Again, my bad. But it changes nothing. I have given over 15 so far.I can give you some more though, on top of the many I have already given:Romans 13:11-12 "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand..."Again, this clearly shows its not 2000 years in the future.James 5:8 "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh."Ditto.I John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."Wow. The LAST TIME.Do you need more?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again you're preaching Jay. When did I announce to anyone I was spreading heresy? I have twisted nothing. You cannot even give me one example where I distorted scripture. Not one. I have backed up everything with evidence. You have yet to give any evidence. You're ignoring the context AGAIN. [I]n the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you- ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief... (emp. added).
John C. Whitcomb observed:Note carefully that the verse does not say that God’s days last thousands of years, but that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years. In other words, God is completely above the limitations of time in the sense that he can accomplish in one literal day what nature or man could not accomplish in thousands of years, if ever. Note that one day is as a thousand years, not is a thousand years, with God. If one day in this verse means a long period of time, then we would end up with the following absurdity: a long period of time is with the Lord as a thousand years. Instead of this, the verse reveals how much God can accomplish in a 24-hour day, and thus sheds much light upon the events of Creation Week (1975, 36:68, emp. in orig.).How I Would Prove to a Jury that the Bible is True - Apologetics Press
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a strawman argument. This verse states nothing about a time frame, just that Jesus will eventually arrive.Again, we are debating a time frame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You keep bringing up Peter, yet you fail to understand that Peter also states the end times were near!I Peter 4:7 "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."1 Peter 1:20 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.Peter also believed the end times were upon them.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay, your logic is appalling. Of course we havent seen them! Its a false prophecy! Hence our debate. You're basically stating since X did not occur, therefore it must mean it will occur in the future, which means the prophecy is true.No. First, we have to know when was X to occur. Who is Jesus talking to? His disciples. Not you. Not me. How do we know this? Bc Jesus states this! "So when YOU....."Of course you skipped over the main parts, but that is par for the course with you.4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.Jesus is speaking to his disciples Jay. Not you. Context.9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.Still referring to his disciples.10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.At what time will the false prophets appear? When his disciples are handed over. When the famines and earthquakes take place. When his disciples are put to death.
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniellet the reader understand 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.Who is to witness the abomination? You? No. The disciples.18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again.Here is the kicker. This distress Jesus has spoken of.....will be UNEQUALED and NEVER equaled again. Obviously, Jesus is referring to the end times!! His disciples will be a part of all this!22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the electif that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.Jesus states false Christs will appear! To who? His disciples!26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.Who is the "you'? The disciples.29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,IMMEDIATELY after all those events in which the disciples will be part of......the son of man will appear!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't fail to address any scripture. I added "around the corner" by accident. As for "soon":Revelation 22: 12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, taken of of context.Matthew 24:6 naturally refers to the beginning not the end bc Jesus goes on in the rest of the chapter to describe what happens after that!Verse 13 states nothing to back up your case. All it states is that there will be an end. The rest of the chapter gives the "when".

You say:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death in the passage.Here is a reference - (Jesus mentions judgement and resurrection also so this is no stretch):
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power." Revelation 20:62) If for the sake of argument we temporarily accept that Jesus meant a second death to see if that holds, it doesn’t.No need to for sake of arguement - see the response to #1.a. That change would mean that Jesus was saying that SOME of those DISCIPLES standing there with Him would be going to suffer the second death. That’s not consistent with the rest of the New Testament in which only ONE DISCIPLE (Judas Iscariot) would have suffered a second death.Peter was sifted like wheat and except for Jesus' restoration and forgiveness would have suffered the same fate as Judas. I say at the time Jesus spoke in the verses that started this thread, Peter's fate was very much in doubt - later we here Jesus respond:"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." And he said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."Sorry, but your understanding of my post=fail

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.
1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death in the passage.

---

quote:

---

BKE:
Here is a reference - (Jesus mentions judgement and resurrection also so this is no stretch):
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power." Revelation 20:6

---

Thanks for showing us that you can’t read. Here's what was said that you replied to ...

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.
1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death IN THE PASSAGE.

---

Now, show me where Jesus says anything about the second death IN THE PASSAGE of interest (not from a book at the opposite end of the New Testament, written by a different author, who wrote much later.)

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
2) If for the sake of argument we temporarily accept that Jesus meant a second death to see if that holds, it doesn’t.
a. That change would mean that Jesus was saying that SOME of those DISCIPLES standing there with Him would be going to suffer the second death. That’s not consistent with the rest of the New Testament in which only ONE DISCIPLE (Judas Iscariot) would have suffered a second death.

---

quote:

---

BKE:
Peter was sifted like wheat and except for Jesus' restoration and forgiveness would have suffered the same fate as Judas.

---

But Peter DIDN’T! So your attempt fails.And of course, you didn’t even attempt to counter this problem with Christians distorting the verse to make it say a second death.

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
2) If for the sake of argument we temporarily accept that Jesus meant a second death to see if that holds, it doesn’t.

​

​

b. NO ONE would taste the second death before the Son of Man returned, so it would not make sense to indicate that only SOME would NOT, because that implies that SOME WOULD.

---

Another Christian apologist bites the dust = fail

You are interested only in a battle of attrition.In 1 Thessalonians, Paul continually counts himself among the "we" he mentions, and he is talking to a particular group of people, LIVING IN HIS OWN TIME.Nowhere is the rest of the passages of interest is there any indication that Paul has stopped talking about himself as part of "we", nor are there any indications that he suddenly stopped talking to only those who the letter is addressed to and to whom the entire rest of the letter addresses specifically and started talking to people some 2000 years in the future.You are forced to try to save Paul from being an apocalypticist, which is what his own words show him to be (sorry if you don't know what an apocalypticist is: maybe you should read up on it), so you make up putative changes in time and audience. A straight reading supports me and counters you. BOTTOM LINE:

​

1. We have shown passages where Jesus indicates that Son of Man will come, with His angels, etc.,

​

(a) before some of those standing there with Him have tasted death (Matthew 16:24, 27-28)

​

and

​

(b) during the current generation. (Matthew 24:27, 30-34)

​

2. You need to show us an equal number of passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will NOT come, with His angels, etc. , until some 2000 years in the future. Until you do that, you lose. It's that simple.
Edited by gragbarder, : No reason given.

you are just repeating yourself - to which I reply - re read my post.I did like this part though:
Quote:
Gragbarder:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.
1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death IN THE PASSAGE.It does not say they had lunch or dinner either in the passage - I guess these could not happen ever either.

It seems to me that to interpret one set of lines to mean what you want, you have to keep on jumping all over the place to find phrases to justify it. IMO, that is trying to find a decoder ring to figure out a puzzle, rather than just doing a straight reading of the text. If you read Matthew as a whole, you do not get it to be a prediction for 2000, 3000, or 4000 years in the future.For you to justify your interpretation, you have to bring in a whole bunch of non contextual quotes from all over the place. If things have to be complicated to justify the interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong.

Gragbarder,I am finished with Heretic. You haven't written as much so I respond to your last post. But the "WE" is not excluding other Christians not yet born.In 1 Thessalonians Paul also speaks of "whether WE watch or sleep, WE may live together with Him" (5:10) In this case in 1 Thess. WE = (those alive + those asleep).
Paul did not exclude himself from the WE because he was not dead. The use of the word "we" and "us" in either 4:15,17 or 5:9,10 does not prove that Paul is not talking also to we Christian believers who are not Thessalonians and are living in the year 2010 A.D.I was not living at the time of his writing, true, but ...
Do I not belong to the new testament church along with Paul?
Do I not belong to the same Body of Christ along with Paul ?
Do I not belong to the same family of believers with Paul?Sorry. I do. Therefore the Apostle Paul and I, "WE" are in the same Body.At the present time, Paul is no longer one of those "alive and left remaining". Should the Lord Jesus descend in my lifetime, Paul would be one of the Christians "fallen asleep" (v.14). "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so also those who have fallen asleep through Jesus, God will bring with Him." (v.14)At time Paul was writing he was not one of the ones fallen asleep but was one of the ones "who are living".And as I pointed out before the "us", "we" and "our" in 5:9,10 should also be understood as including a group of people larger in scope then just the Thessalonians: "For God did not appoint US to wrath but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for US in order that whether WE watch our sleep, WE may live together with Him." (1 Thess. 5:9,10 my emphasis) It is ludicrous to presume that Paul meant that Christ had died for ONLY the Thessalonian recipents of his epistle. It is ridiculous to assume that only the Thessalonian Christians God wanted to live together with Christ.In the same way "we who are living, who are left remaining, will be caught up together with the them in the clouds" is not restricted to the Thessalonian audience. It applies to all of the ekklesiastical WE who are living and left remaining. Some of the WE will have fallen asleep. Some of the WE will not be left remaining. All belong to Christ as one Body.Whoever of the Body of Christ "WE" who happens to be alive and left remaining when Christ descends, will be caught up in the clouds. He died on the cross for us that we may live together with Him and He will come for us who are alive and are left remaining, to catch us up in the clouds.It is not necessary to point out the number of years in which the event will occur. Paul had no idea of the specific number of years until this event. It is open ended. The use of the word "we" does not insist that Paul knows that he WILL BE alive and left remaining when it takes place.This bears repeating: The fact that Paul said "we who are living, who are left remaining" does not insist that Paul knows that he, or his Thessalonian audience WILL BE alive and left remaining at the event.He simply does not know who of the universal church will be living and left remaining. But whoever of the "we" who are living and are left remaining will be caught to the Lord in the clouds when He comes. "Whether WE watch or sleep ..." (5:10) does not exclude Paul because he was not dead.Looking again at 1 Thess. 5:9-11:
It is illogical to say that Christ did not die for anyone else except Paul and the Thessalonians. And that only Paul and the Thessalonians did God intend to live together with Christ. If by "apocalypticist" you mean that Paul may have wanted, hoped, and even expected Christ to come in his lifetime, I do not save him from that.What he needs no saving from is the fact that he DID NOT KNOW when the second coming of Christ would happen. If he did please point out in the New Testament where Paul specifies the DATE of the event.I do not know the formal definition of your word "apocalypticist". But Paul can live in the expectation of the coming of Jesus any moment and still not be charged with KNOWING when it would happen. No. But the evidence is against you there.I think you should put away your Christian refuter book long enough to read the rest of the New Testament for yourself. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ramoss, put away what I interpret for awhile. Examine Peter's attitude; John's attitude; and Paul's attitude. Look at their epistles.Then you have to decide if you think your insight into the words of Jesus are more to be trusted than thiers.Now if you want to say that yours is more reliable, that's your right. As for me though, I want to align my attitude about the whole matter with the attitude of these apostles. No I do not. Even from examining Matthew 24 and 25 and the sister passages in the other synoptics which together seem to relate to the same preaching, the evidence does nor confirm Heretic's view.And what essentially is that view? It is that the number of YEARS between when the Lord Jesus had that discourse and His second coming CANNOT be 2,000 years or more.A generation in the Bible can be 2,000 years or more long. It could not be in the typical sense of a person's physical lifetime. But it COULD be in the sense of "evil generation" or a generations characterized by a moral condition.As for those standing around not tasting death until the Son of Man is seen coming in His kingdom? Without skipping around to other passages, I showed that the mentioning of the Transfuguration, in each case, immediately afterwards, suggests that the INTENTION of the writers is to connect the event with the previous words.And I pointed out that Luke specifically says "And about eight days AFTER THESE WORDS ... " (Luke 9:28) .I think the best argument that was presented for Heretic's view is about going through the villages and Christ coming.It seems a valid point that some of the disciples expected John not to die before the second coming of Christ (John 21:23).
But the writer of the Gospel of John corrects their misunderstanding. Now, I do not dispute that the disciples WANTED and EXPECTED Jesus not to take 2000 plus years to return. But they didn't know when He would come. And those who wrote epistles prepared thier audience for the event should He take longer than they desired or expected.Do you see how they misunderstood the speaking of Jesus in relation to His second coming? "IF ... I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"This is like Jesus saying "IF I want John to go to the Moon, so what? You follow Me?"In the same principle, Heretic is misundering the words of Jesus to be proof that His coming had to be under N number of years. Heretic has not specified what that N should be except he cannot believe N could be 2000 or over.But it could. And Peter reminds the Christians that it could in (1 Peter 3:8) . He seems to be referencing Psalm 90:4. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And??.. If you look at the writings of Peter, in context of what is the writer of the Gospel of Peter is talking about and in Paul's letter in context of the letter of Paul , it does not make your case. The Gospel of John is so corrupted by so many people having their finger in the pie it would be difficult to figure out what the original author had verses what has modified later.If you read Matthew, in context with Mathew, it specifically falsifies you claim. The requirement to turn the book of Mathew into a giant puzzle with little out of context quotes from other authors insures you are not understanding what the author of the Gospel of Matthew was saying. For what the author fo the Gospel of Matthew is says, you can't look at the any other gospel or letter. You have to look at the Gospel of Matthew. What is that author saying? You have to look at when it is written, where it was written, and who the audience was.The need to skip to every other place in the bible, and ignore those issues is to insure your reading your prejudices INTO the text, rather than reading from the text.Theology by sound bits is not sound theology.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

I will not be refering to the apochryphal Gospel of Peter. Or that of Mary or of Judas or of Thomas. A discussion on the Canon of the New Testament is another discussion. This is more textural criticism which I would not be getting into here. But if you wish you can take the 21rst chapter that I quoted and specify exactly which verses of the 25 verses you know for a fact are not that of the original writer, enumerate them.If you cannot isn't it easy just to make a vague claim that you know some verses from the 25 are not to be trusted as originally written ? How do I know you are not simply picking what you theologically do not agree with and saying "John never wrote that"? Let's play it your way. Though I do not agree with you, I'll humor you a bit. Let's consider ONLY Matthew chatper 24.The question is: "How many years did Jesus specify would take place from the time of His discourse about His second coming until that coming?"Here's your chance to put the argument to rest. Show me in Matthew the number of years.5 years? 16 years? 22.8 years? 58 years? 350 years? 1000 years? 1642 years? 2881 years? 2000 years? 7000 years?Which verse specifies the number? (Just Matthew 24 now).Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Sure you're done with me Jay. The reason is I asked you repeatedly to provide evidence for your claims. You could not provide a single verse that states any of the words that denote a recent time frame for his return as meaning "far off". Not one.
Every single author you provided stated the exact same thing. The end times were during their generation. Every word they used to describe how far off.....was a word that means "soon".I also stated that you jump around using scripture which has nothing to do with the authors we are discussing. Ramoss has now also stated the exact same thing. I have also stated quite a few times you create strawman arguments. Which is exactly what you are doing now.I do not think you understand what a strawman argument is.The debate is if the authors made the claim that Jesus would return during their generation. You even shorted in to just Matthew 24. Fine.But.................You have changed the debate to an exact number given, then you're asking questions to that inquirey. Once someone states they do not have an exact number given by Jesus in Matthew 24, you'll claim then that the gospels then do not give a time frame for the return of Jesus.Problem......Thats not the debate. The debate is not if Jesus gave an exact, pinpoint time frame right down to the year.The debate is if Jesus would return during their lifetime or soon thereafter...............or two thousand years later.

Heretic, I only meant that I had nothing more really to reply to you as I think my replies have been adaquate to refute your argument.I'll give you one last shot. Let us say that generation in Matthew 24:34 gives the timeframe.The generation will not pass away until the second coming of Christ ?Okay?Let us further assume that by "generation" Jesus means people living while He is living. I do not believe that that is exactly how Jesus is using the word generation in that passage, but for argument's sake let us assume that He means His contemporaries.Okay?Now tell me, ROUGHLY, no specific number, no specific YEAR ... ABOUT when was the end of that generation ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.