Did Jesus lie ?

unlike other people here I only bring in verses from the same book that describe the same subject (kingdom) using similar phraseology. well, I think narrowing it down to one verse and ignoring the rest of the book is even stricter! Then we agree:
"Here's what's going to happen" = "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels" v27
"some of you here will get a taste of it before you leave this life" = "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."v28The point of contention here is whether the 'Son of man come in the glory of his Father with angels' equals 'the Son of man coming in his kingdom'.I think that the phraseology used in chapters 24/25 while describing the kingdom shows that the two phrases both refer to the same thing.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I explained it already in the writer of Hebrews meaning in "But now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him. But we see Jesus ..." (Heb. 2:8)In short the man in Psalm 8 has not fulfilled the mandate. But Jesus in contrast has come to be what God intended by mankind.That is why He is the Savior. Did you notice that Adam blew it? Did you notice that Christ is called the Second Man and the last Adam?Man "from the foundation of the world" was to enjoy God's kingdom on the earth (Matthew 25:34 -

​

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." From the foundation of the world God intended to establish His kingdom with man as His deputy authority. Adam relinquished that mandate and came under the authority of darkness. Christ recovers God's intention for His kingdom on the earth.The created man was placed before the tree of life to receive the life of God. He was excluded because of his sin and partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.In this exclusion Paul says man was "alienated from the life of God" (EPh. 4:18). Christ in Acts as the Holy Spirit imparts this divine life into the new man the church. The Author of life they had killed. But God raised Him (Acts 3:15)The apostles were told to go into the temple and "speak all the words of this life." That is this divine ZOE life imparted resurrection of which is Jesus Himself. In opening the doors to the kingdom of the heavens man came into the church and was no longer alienated from the life of God.I will have to continue latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

The man as God originally created him was to be God's deputy authority upon the earth over the creation of God. Adam failed and sin and death were introduced into the world. Man's ability to reign was drastically damaged.

---

All that Hebrews 2:5-8 is saying is that Jesus is just like us, human. These verses in the Book of Hebrews are not saying that humans are no longer going to reign.In verse 9 we see that Jesus is also crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death. Jesus was crowned with glory and honor just as humans were as mentioned in verse 7. By capitalizing "him" in the earlier verses you show that you see those referring to Jesus and they aren't. They are referring to mankind, humans; just as the verses in Psalm 8 was.

quote:

---

Then the writer says that though we do not see the world subject to man as God originally intended, we do see Jesus:

---

Again, not what the verse is saying. It is saying that not everything is subject to humans yet. If you look at verse 14-15 we see what is not yet subject to humans. If we read on we find that the author is speaking of Jesus becoming a high priest.

quote:

---

Jesus, in this section of Hebrews, has come to fulfill what the first man Adam and his descendents failed at. The manifestation of this reigning of Christ over the earth is to come in a fuller sense in the next age which the writer calls "the coming inhabited earth"

---

As I showed previously that is not what chapter of Hebrews is implying. There is no implication that humans failed.

quote:

---

That world is not subject to angels but to the glorified Man Christ Jesus and His partners in "so great a salvation"

---

What Hebrews 2 is saying is that Jesus is just as glorified as mankind, but he was crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death. Verse 7 says that mankind was already crowned with glory and honor.I don't see how any of this shows that the transfiguration is a preview of the world to come. IMO, the transfiguration just showed that Jesus was the annointed one.As far as Matthew 16:28, I think truthlover hit the nail on the head in Message 238. I don't feel that Jesus was making a prophecy to be accountable for.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hello again Jay,Thank you for your response. If by 'considerable amount' you mean a tune up, then I would have to agree with you. A 'tune up' would be in order. A tune up would be expected. But an entirely different concept? A messiah who commits suicide? How does that eliminate the alien threat? How does that prevent Israel from being stomped by Rome?The work of establishing an entirely new and different definition of 'messiah,' would require a lifetime of persuasive argumentation. We don't see Jesus doing that. What we do see is Jesus sending out his newsmen to announce (here, in paraphrase): "The heavenly government has arrived." He expected the Jews would already know what that meant. I am not trying to constrict him. I am not saying that the Jews didn't need educating. But consider the facts. People are where they are. These people are Jews. Jesus comes into their world, as a Jew. He is Jewish, and he says, "Salvation is of the Jews." And according to some, Jesus was the one who established Jewish concepts in the first place. There is nothing ridiculous in suggesting that we should understand the Jewish point of view. Had he been the 'messiah' of prophecy, they would not have been able to bring him down.I wouldn't think that Jesus lied by admitting to being the Christ; I rather believe that he was unable to accomplish that which he had set out to do; failing to fulfill many of the Old Testament prophecies; and failing to fulfill the New Testament prophecy of his Uncle Zacharias.Luke 1:68-71

quote:

---

"Blessed [be] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

​

And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

​

As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

​

That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

---

Now that, my friend, is real Salvation.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I'd like to invite Brian, Riverrat and anyone else to demonstrate how exactly the above verse has (or hasn't) come true.I haven't read the entire thread, but I glanced over it and did not see the response I would have given.The issue is with Jesus' words:Mt 16:28 "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."This did happen quite litterally, just not in the sense implied.I'll answer the question with two proofs:1. The resurection.2. Pentecost.The Apostles and believers were scattered in fear at the death of Jesus. They did not know what it meant. But after His ressurection the church was born, and on the day of pentecost, the rest of Jesus promises were fulfilled.And each time a new believer is 'Born Again' as jesus said we must be, they too experience the risen Lord.It's not the proof an unbeliever is looking for I know, but it is the proof that those of us who took the chance and gave Him our lives never expected to be so real.You can actually meet the creator of the universe! Don't take my word for it, try it yourself! If your sincere, He will come to you. It's really that simple.John 14:18-24
18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

The chapter does indeed stress that Jesus is like us. I agree with this. But we are like Him not merely in the sense that He was a created man and we are created men. The audience is like Him and He like them in that the audience are sanctified believers in Christ (not the unbelievers) and are of the same divine Source of divine life:”For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, I will declare Your name to My brothers; in the midst of the church I will sing hymns of praise toYou.” (Heb 2:11,12)The created people are NOT in the process of being sanctified by Christ UNLESS they have become believers in Jesus Christ. It is the saints (the believers) who are being sanctified by the Sanctifier. It is not all created people who are in the process of sanctification merely because they are human. Can you see this?He declares the name of His Father in the church. He does not declare the name of God merely or the Creator. He declares the name of His Father. We have to believe in Christ, be born of God to claim His Father as our Father also. Such who are born of the one Father are the church. Can you see this?”But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name . ” (John 1:12)”Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus . . to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours . ” (1 Cor. 1:2)Hebrews two does not stop at saying the audience is like Him as created humans. It teaches that the audience is like Him in that His divine Father is theirs also in the process of His sanctification in the called out assembly - the church.But the audience are not altogether the same as He. He is a Leader Who cut the way for the audience. They audience was under the dominion of death and need to be released from its power:”He Himself . might release those who because of fear of death through all their life were held in slavery” (2:14a,15)The man God created to have dominion fell in Adam. And he came under the bondage and slavery of death. Whereas the first man allowed death to enter into creation, Jesus in Hebrews two has destroyed him who has the authority of death, the devil -”Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death HE might destroy him who has the might of death, that is the devil” (2:14). In this aspect of Him destroying the one who has the might of death, He is unique and truly has all things under His feet. The version that I am quoting does capitalize ”Him” in verse 8. And I do admit that that makes the passage a little difficult to decipher.However the crowning of Christ with glory and honor should refer to His resurrection. He was crowned by man with a crown of thorns before. Thorns were a symbol of the curse of God upon the earth. Christ entered into His glory mentioned in this chapter in His resurrection. He Himself said after His resurrection:”Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory” (Luke 24:26)The glory spoken of as a crown in Hebrews is not the glory of His being a created man. It is the glory of Him having suffered and being a man in resurrection. As Peter also teaches:” . the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these .” (1 Peter 1:11)This is the glory which Hebrews says is the crown upon Jesus. And this is why on the Mt. of Transfiguration He commanded the witnesses to say nothing of the glory they beheld in Him until AFTER He was to be raised from the dead:”And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is raised from the dead” (Matt. 17:9)They saw a preview of this glory. But He prefered that the world would know of this glory after He should rightly pass through His redemptive death and overcoming resurrection. The glories were to follow the sufferings. What the disciples saw was a temporary seeping through of the divine glory concealed within the shell of His humanity. In His resurrection the glories are eternal and permenant. That is what I am saying. And that is why I said the capitalization of ”Him” in the RcV may make this difficult to grasp without careful study. But the translators are counting Adam as a type of Christ I think.I agree with you that 14 and 15 stress that Christ has become God incarnated as a created man with flesh and blood. I agree with you that in this regard He is qualified to be a faithful High Priest. But I would have to go to another topic to deal with His sanctification process making the believers like Him.At this point I will only say that the High Priest is imparting the living law of God into man in the new and better covenant:”For this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will impart My laws into their mind, and on their hearts I will inscribe them; and I will be God to them, and they will be a people to Me.” (Hebrews 8:10)The High Priest in Hebrews is therefore not just sympathizing with the created man. He is imparting the divine life of God with its spontaneous law of life into His redeemed people constituting them God’s people according to divine life and divine nature - i.e. ”leading many sons into glory”.He became like us in humanity that He might make us like Him in divinity. Therefore those under His priestly ministry have ”tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit . ” (Heb. 6:4)The divine nature which He has must be wrought into His people. He must impart the divine into them. He became man so that we might become sons of God. He did not come to those created and already sons of God. Rather He came to those who were defeated by death and needed a release from its power to receive the eternal life and divine nature.He is a High Priest according to the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16) which He is ministering into the sons of God as the inner law of life of the new covenant. In that they need release from death and sin they have failed. Sin and death are underneath the feet of Christ. He is the leading One to reign. The saved are the following ones to reign via His great salvation. His exaltation and crowning with glory and honor follows His suffering and death. In eternity Christ was the Creator, unlimited and omnipresent. When He incarnated as a man in time, He was limited so that one day He could go to the cross and deal with the universal problem - death. In order to suffer death and destroy death and nullify death, Christ had to become a man and lose His freedom temporarily, for thirty three and one half years. During this period He was inferior to the angels, in the sense of His assumed limitation. However, three days after His death He resurrected out of that inferiority and is now much superior to the angels.From Hebrews 1:4 through 2:18 the writer is teaching the Hebrews that Christ is superior to the angels - ”For to which of the angels has He ever said, You are My Son; this day have I begotten You?” (1:5)Many things are said in this section to show that the angels are inferior to the resurrected Son. When you read ”But we see Jesus,who was made a little inferior to the angels because of the suffering of death , crowned with glory and honor . ” you should understand that following death was His resurrection in which He is glorified and honored.He died AND was resurrected so that He might taste death on behalf of everything. It is in His resurrection that ”on behalf of everything” becomes effective for man and the universe. He is a High Priest in resurrection with the power of an indestructible life. I think this is how we should think of His crowing with glory and honor in the Hebrews passage. As Peter wrote ”God, who raised Him (Christ) from the dead and gave Him glory” (1 Peter 1:21) The most direct interpretation of the Transfiguration is given by one of the witnesses, Peter. And Peter says that they were ”eyewitness to that One’s majesty.” Based upon that eyewitness experience Peter and the apostles make known to us ”the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”.How can you not think of that eyewitness experience then as a preview of Christ’s power and coming?Furthermore Peter says that no lie was found in the mouth of Jesus. So you are either going to put your trust in Legend and Brian that Jesus had a lie in His mouth or trust the Apostle Peter that no lie was found there.My decision is to trust Peter and the New Testament over Brian and Legend. You make your decision as to who you plan to trust.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.

Legend, you're missing my point here. I am not complaining about the verses you're pointing to. I have no beef with the context you are giving to what Y'shua said.But the issue is that you are saying--or at least I think you're saying--is that he CANNOT be talking about the transfiguration.The point of this thread is that Jesus was lying when he said some would be alive to see him coming in the power of his kingdom. All I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that he was referring to a point six days later when they saw dead people talking to them, Jesus shining in light, and God saying that they should listen to Jesus, because Jesus is his beloved son.When I said you were being too strict, I didn't mean that you were using the wrong verses or going about interpreting wrong. I meant that you hadn't presented enough evidence, in my opinion, to show that it is so unlikely that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration that we should dismiss that interpretation and call Jesus a liar.Is that more clear? I'm agreed that this is the point of contention.I even agree that in Matt 16:28 you MIGHT be right. It just seems too much to completely dismiss the evidence that Matthew puts the transfiguration event immediately after, even mentioning how soon after. I think it's entirely possible that the "taste" they got of the coming kingdom and it's power was seeing dead people speaking, the glory of God lit up around them, and God announcing the authority of his Son. That's a pretty dramatic event that's listed there by Matthew.

Docterbill, Do you think the praise of Mary in Luke 1 should superceed all of the teachings of Christ concerning His disciples loving their enemies and praying for their enemies?Do you think the New Testament could eliminate the epistles of Paul and simply end with the praises of Mary in Luke chapter one?Suppose God saves you from your enemies but you still live in fornication and stealing. Are you saved in New Testament terms?Suppose God saves you from those who hate you and from your enemies but you are an atheist or a slave of mammon? Is that your real salvation? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Unfotunately you have so much extraneous information, I can't reasonably address it and keep to the topic. I really don't see how any of it pertained to the topic anyway.So back to that which is on topic.I feel that the testimony you are pulling from 1 Peter deals with the actual presence of Jesus, not the kingdom of God. The use of parousia by Paul in Philippians shows a meaning of physical presence. The author (supposedly Peter) is testifying to having seen Jesus physically. He is also testifying to the majesty of Jesus, which he saw in the transfiguration. I'm not disagreeing that this author is talking of the transfiguration, but I don't agree that he is talking of witnessing the kingdom and therefore doesn't support that Matthew 16:28 is referring to the transfiguration. From what I can tell parousia ( presence, arrival) and erchomai (to make one's appearance) both carry a meaning of physical appearance.So while Peter testified to the coming of Jesus (his presence), I don't feel he is claiming to have witnessed the kingdom. Yes I feel that the author of Matthew was speaking of a physical kingdom not an ethereal kingdom or rule.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You are comparing Apples and Oranges:You are comparing legalism and militarism.The problem of conformity to civil statute is personal and individual; while the problem of an alien occupation is corporate and general.There is a great degree of difference between, on the one hand, helping an individual deal with personal behaviour issues (such as getting Joe to stop spitting in the street), and on the other hand: enabling large scale political goals (such as forcing an alien army to evacuate one's country). Joe's atheism does not require that God stop the world turning; or black out the stars; or kill his own son.Getting Joe to stop spitting on the street does not prove that one is messiah. - But - Running the Americans out of Iraq overnight; just might.Dead people are very unlikely to change their ways. First you save them from their enemies, then you save them from themselves. Do both if you like, but for sure: Save Them From Their Enemies. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

You don't feel like there could be a specific difference between saying "this generation" and "your generation". I feel that if I was Jesus, and I meant to imply that the generation I was talking about, was the one of my disciples lifetime, I would have said to them "your generation." But just like we are discussing the possibilities of what was meant, so do the notes, and commentaries.But this doesn't mean that Jesus was not clear to His disciples. They wrote it down, and maybe the dicsiples were not clear enough expressing what was meant to us. Or maybe we do not understand the bible enough to understand what is meant.Here are some more notes on that verse, and you can see the contradiction between the notes. Plus you still seem to be ignoring the definition from the lexicon, the greek dictionary: noun - nominative singular feminine
genea ghen-eh-ah': a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.So I am not making this stuff up, and it is not as simple as finding a greek person, and asking him what it means. Surely the language has changed over the last 1850 years, and the meaning of the word genea is broader than the meaning you are implying. In other words the definition is not as broad as it was back then, in common usage. Just from reading all these facts, and evidences I provided, you must know that statement is false. My pre-conceptions have nothing to do with it, and I am approaching this as un-biased as possible. I have included what I felt to be what the Holy Spirit was telling me, before I even started studying it in such depth. But like I said before, this is not an ansolute, as I myself can be decieved, I am not perfect, just because I feel the Holy Spirit.You should retract that statement. No, that is not what He said. He said: "An evil and adulterous generation". That to me can mean any period of time that contains those kinds of people. It is a generation of evil and adulterous people. Not a generation of people who are evil and adulterous. There is a difference. You may very well be incorrect. You should take the entire chaptor in context, not just 24:34. There are many things that must happen, and all those things happening help us to define the word genea. If it is not the fall of Jerusalem, then a lot of those things have not happened yet, so it is perfectly safe to assume that the word genea means something more than a period of 30-100 years.Also, maybe we should be studying the word "this" in that verse. I tried, but I am unsure which word in the greek sentence means this.It's either:
demonstrative pronoun - nominative plural neuter
tauta tow'-tah: these things -- + afterward, follow, + hereafter, him, the same, so, such, that, then, these, they, this, those, thus.or

which can mean:
including the feminine he (hay), and the neuter to (to) in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.But probably there is no confusing fo the meaning of the word "this".

jaywill wrote:

quote:

---

I ask for specific challenges to any one or more of these points.

---

Why? Why not stick to the topic of the thread, which we've seen over and over shows that mt 16:28 is simply incorrect?We've seen time and again that it is the fundamentalists who are most willing to distort the plain and simple original meaning of the authors of the Bible if it doensn't fit their pre-conceived ideas. More than that, we've seen time and again how people like Jaywill and RR are perfectly willing to insert a whole bunch of ideas into the Bible if they want them to be there.The big list on Jaywill's post is a good example of this. Many of them aren't anywere in the Bible, and are made-up, ad-hoc ways to try to wiggle out of a problem which was only created by their own dogmatism. I've posted many ideas on here that have been simply ignored, perhaps because it's easier for a literalist to ignore them and ignore the Bible rather than face what their own Bible says.Oh, and to touch on another topice - The books we now call the Bible were originally all in greek. This can be seen not only in the fact that our oldest manuscrpts are all greek, but has been confirmed linguistically. Anyone claiming to know anything at all about the Bible should know that, showing again that the literalists like Jaywill and RR don't know what they are talking about beyond having a warm and fuzzy feeling that they attribute to the holy spirit. Worse, they do that while spouting bigotry about how all the other warm and fuzzy feelings in all other religions are false.Worst of all, perhaps, is the insult to God that these literalists like Jaywill and RR keep repeating. That insult is the implication that God actually wants you to go through such a long and covoluted series of arguments from outside the Bible to understand his supposed word. Wouldn't any god worth his salt do a better job communicating his word? Any marketing major could do a better job, and they don't even have divine powers.Jaywill's list is a great example of this. If Jaywill really thinks that list is correct, and that it is at least somewhat important, than why didn't god include it in the Bible? Jaywill's list is well under 200 words. The Bible is approaching a million words. That's less than 0.04%. There is no need to make up all this extra (and extra convoluted) material, and to make it up like that is an insult to God. Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

The author has already shown you how he is using the word generation. See Message 224.The author of Matthew doesn't use "your generation". If Jesus was talking with one person and said your generation, then he would mean the people of that person's age group.If Jesus was talking with just his disciples and they are of varying ages, then he would mean people in general. So when speaking to a group of people, "this" or "your" would have the same meaning when attached to the word generation.So in Matthew 24 he is talking of the living people of the time.

quote:

---

noun - nominative singular feminine
genea ghen-eh-ah': a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

---

Unless specified, the word generation is relative to who the speaker is talking to.If President Bush addresses the nation and says, "this generation will..." he is talking about those now alive living in the United States; not another country.It's just another way of referring to a group of people.

quote:

---

He said: "An evil and adulterous generation". That to me can mean any period of time that contains those kinds of people. It is a generation of evil and adulterous people. Not a generation of people who are evil and adulterous. There is a difference.

---

It's neither. In Matthew 12:39 Jesus is responding to the question in the previous verse 38. It is a way of accusing his questioners without actually accusing them.If what Jesus said applies to any group of people at one given time that are evil and adulterous and they ask for a miraculous sign, then they would be given the sign of the prophet Jonah. So either there has never been another evil and adulterous group of people who have asked for a sign or Jesus was referring to his questioners. I don't feel he was making a generic statement concerning evil and adulterous people in any given timeframe. He was talking specifically of his own time and his own people and those who follow the Jewish religion. Not just the Jewish race. All Jews were not of the Jewish race.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Equinox,Please make your argument by addressing the position not the person.This comment was unneccessary and does nothing to further the discussion. Please keep in mind that this thread is in the Bible Study Forum.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

call me crazy, but I'm going to trust Jesus (according to Matthew) :the establishment of the kingdom is imminent: sayings about the Son Of Man's coming, associated with the coming of the kingdom I mean Matt 19:28 alone sums it all up : the regeneration about to begin, the judgement, Jesus coming in glory, the disciples expected to be there, it's all right there don't you think ?Oh, but I forget. You don't trust Matthew's word. You'd rather trust Peter. Right...

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."