The Coming of Christ

First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations.

It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred.

The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right.

II Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." Peter was dealing with those who who have been upsetting early Christendom by questioning the Lord's promise to return. People fully expected His return in their lifetime.

Now, why would the people of that time expect the return or coming of Christ in their lifetime? Because it was part of the Apostolic message. James 5:7&8 states, "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord IS AT HAND." The imminent return of Christ was taught by the apostles. My first question for you is this, "Did the apostles lie?"

Now, let's look at some of the words of Jesus. Matthew 16:27&28 states, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who SHALL NOT TASTE death till they see the Son of Man COMING in His Kingdom." This indicates that the coming of Christ in His kingdom would be in the lifetime of SOME of the disciples.

Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Here's what we have so far; 1) The apostles taught the immenent return of Christ in their lifetime. 2) Jesus indicated that His coming would be in the lifetime of some of His disciples.

But, now we come to Matthew 24. Jesus had just been in the temple in Jerusalem condemning the scribes and the Pharisees, for all their wickedness down through the years. And at the end of this diatribe, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." - 23:36. Now, when Jesus said, "this generation," do you suppose he was referring to some far off distant generation? He just got finished condemning them for all their wickedness, and then He says, their punishment wouldn't occur till some far off generation. Yeah right. 23:37 established that they were in fact in Jerusalem. And that is where Matthew 24 begins.

Matthew 24 starts with Jesus and the disciples leaving the temple. Jesus showed them the temple, and told them it would be destroyed. They asked this question, "when will these things be ? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Jesus then told them of unprecedented great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Not, America. And, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS, the sun would be darkened, etc. Then you will see the sign of the Son of Man... then they will see the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM, not thousands of years later, but immediately after the great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Well, that great tribulation did occur just as Jesus foretold, culminating in the desecration and destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

There you have it, the case for the coming of Christ in 70 AD. However, there is much more in Scripture that confirms what is written here. This little article simply is the beginning. However, I do believe this is enough to establish the fact that the coming of Christ did indeed take place in 70AD.

All Scripture quotations from the NKJV

Didymus,

Does "I will come again" in John 14:3 qualify for >second<?

Matthew 16:27-28, "see" is explained in Matthew 17:1-9 and 2 Peter 1:16-18 as "vision".

Matthew 24:15-20 = Luke 21:20-24a = destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D.

Luke 21:24b = Matthew 24:14-29 = after the destruction of Jerusalem
"Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations until..." = "the tribulation of those days" = the tribulation continues for the Jews even today, over 1900 years since Jerusalem was destroyed.

Matthew 24:29 30 "they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great brightness" = "after" Jerusalem is trodden down until..." - or until Zechariah 14:1-4, and "after the tribulation of those days" - or Jews "captive into all nations" = yet future. No one has yet seen Jesus come in the clouds of heaven as also described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. As Matthew 23:37-39 states, they will not see Jesus until they cry, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD."

Further note that Jesus said also to his disciples on the mount of Olives the words in Matthew 2531, "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon his glorious throne." That is, on "the throne of his father David" in Jerusalem (Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:30-33; Revelation 3:21). This Jesus has yet to do.

The Bible is a book of prophecy - history not yet happened.

Russ

[quote="Didymus"]First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations.

It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred.

Russ asked,
"Does "I will come again" in John 14:3 qualify for >second<?"

The word "again" indicates something being repeated, but this not the parousia as the Greek word translated "come" is erchomai. Parousia is more than a simple coming or going, it is more a coming and staying, at least for a while. However, I will have to study this further.

Since Jesus indicated a short tribulation period, I doubt it was going to last for thousands of years, as he also said, "no flesh" would have survived.

I cannot answer with any certainty whether or not Jesus was seen coming in the clouds. There is no way of knowing for sure, unless we can come up with a 2,000 year old witness. However, I accept by faith that it happened because Jesus said it would.

In the spiritual kingdom, Jesus is sitting on the throne of David.

Since, Jesus kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, it's impossible to even prove that it exists through human senses. As my brother Paul said natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, and he was right.

I can't prove through human senses that God said, "Let there be light" and the light appeared as he said. And as yet there was no sun, moon or stars. But, I accept that by faith. In the same way I accept by faith that when Jesus said, "some of you standing here shall not taste death till they see the son of Man coming (parousia) in His kingdom," it happened just as he said, otherwise Jesus is a liar, and a fraud, and the gospel is based on lies.

You see, my belief in the coming of Christ in 70AD, does not come from extra-biblical history books, or or the words of Old Testament prophets which I may or may not understand, or any physical evidence. No, it's on the words of Jesus, and the teaching of the apostles. Just because I can't prove something to you satisfaction, does not mean it is untrue.

God bless.

I have scriptures that prove we have Second Coming:
1 Thessalonians 4:13
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.
Hebrews 10:27
"27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."
2 Timothy 4: 1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:
Acts 17:31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
Matthew 24:27 says, "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.

Spring,

Thanks for your response.

I use to be where you are at now. But, I have come to realize that the original writings that eventually became our Bible was written almost 2000 years ago. That's a long time to be in the transition between the accension of Christ, and his coming, esspecially since the preponderance of literary evidence in the New Testament indicates that the coming of Christ was soon at the time it was originally written. The Bible is an historical document, copied and translated many times for nearly 2000 years.

There are many statements that indicates that the coming of Christ was imminent at the time of the original writings. The problem is in treating the Bible as if it was written yesterday, thus creating the illusion that "all these things must happen in MY generation."

After realizing that, the coming of Christ in my life time just didn't make sense anymore. Nearly at the same that I realized that, I learned about preterism. I studied it, and it made much more sense to me than any of the futurist positions I held in the past. So, I became a believer in fulfilled prophecy.

Does that make sense?

Didymus,

From further study of erchomai and parousia, I think you will find that they are synonyms with "phaneroo" in Hebrews 9:28 where "deuterou" ("second") is used of Jesus coming again.

"So, Christ was offered once to bear the sins of man...he will appear a second [time], not as a sin [offering], but unto [to give] salvation."

Jesus spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, the captivity of his people Israel, and great tribulation during their captivity. Only "after the tribulation of those days" [however long that is] did he indicate he would "appear" a second time.

Compare the many years of tribulation in Daniel 11 (from the kings of Persia) to when Michael delivers Israel in 12:1-2 with Paul's description of when Jesus will "descend out of heaven...with the voice of the Archangel" Michael. As far as I can tell from the events between 70 A.D. and 2010 A.D., Jews continue dispersed among the nations and have yet to be delivered by either Michael or Jesus - or by God.

I also conclude (as you) that much prophecy has been fulfilled and is now history. But Zechariah 14:1-5 has yet to be fulfilled, especially that Jehovah's servant will come to the Mount of Olives, just as Jesus' disciples were told when he ascended from the Mount of Olives, "This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11,12). The Mount of Olives remain one mountain, not divided with a great valley between. So, I conclude Jesus has not yet come to the Mount of Olives "a second time".

As for Jesus' kingdom being a >spiritual< (I infer i.e. a figurative) kingdom.... Was David's throne a literal throne on Mt. Zion, in Jerusalem? This is what I read in the books of the Kings. As for Jehovah's anointed (the son of David and the son of God), Psalm 2 and 89, as God promised Mary, "he shall sit upon the throne of his father David" He promised, "I have set My king upon My holy hill of Zion...Ask of Me, and I shall give [you] the nations for your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession." I find Scripture (Old and New Testaments) describes Jesus' kingdom as that government which replaces all the kingdoms of the earth, and he will reign from his throne in Jerusalem: Luke 19:11ff; Daniel 7:13-14,27; Revelation 11:15; 5:9-19; 20:4-6; Isaiah 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-7; 5:1-4; Zechariah 6:12-13; Isaiah 11:6-12:6.

Therefore, I read Matthew 16:28 as Jesus explained, "Tell this vision to no man" and as Peter (an eyewitness) recalled, "we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus...were eyewitnesses...when we were with him in the holy mount" [2 Peter 1:16-18]. Peter, James, and John "standing there" six days later did "not taste of death until they [saw] the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" with Moses and Elijah resurrected and with him in his kingdom [Hebrews 11 with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Revelation 11:15-18].

Russ


[quote="Didymus"]Russ asked,
"Does "I will come again" in John 14:3 qualify for >second<?"

The word "again" indicates something being repeated, but this not the parousia as the Greek word translated "come" is erchomai. Parousia is more than a simple coming or going, it is more a coming and staying, at least for a while. However, I will have to study this further.

Since Jesus indicated a short tribulation period, I doubt it was going to last for thousands of years, as he also said, "no flesh" would have survived.

I cannot answer with any certainty whether or not Jesus was seen coming in the clouds. There is no way of knowing for sure, unless we can come up with a 2,000 year old witness. However, I accept by faith that it happened because Jesus said it would.

In the spiritual kingdom, Jesus is sitting on the throne of David.

Since, Jesus kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, it's impossible to even prove that it exists through human senses. As my brother Paul said natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, and he was right.

I can't prove through human senses that God said, "Let there be light" and the light appeared as he said. And as yet there was no sun, moon or stars. But, I accept that by faith. In the same way I accept by faith that when Jesus said, "some of you standing here shall not taste death till they see the son of Man coming (parousia) in His kingdom," it happened just as he said, otherwise Jesus is a liar, and a fraud, and the gospel is based on lies.

You see, my belief in the coming of Christ in 70AD, does not come from extra-biblical history books, or or the words of Old Testament prophets which I may or may not understand, or any physical evidence. No, it's on the words of Jesus, and the teaching of the apostles. Just because I can't prove something to you satisfaction, does not mean it is untrue.

God bless.

Russ,

Are you saying that Matthew 16.28 is referring to the transfiguration?

Didymus,

Yes, Jesus was in vision changed to show himself in "the glory of his Father".

Russ

Didymus wrote:

Russ,

Are you saying that Matthew 16.28 is referring to the transfiguration?

Russell J Rankin wrote:

Didymus,

Yes, Jesus was in vision changed to show himself in "the glory of his Father".

Russ

Didymus wrote:

Russ,

Are you saying that Matthew 16.28 is referring to the transfiguration?

Okay, let's examine that possibility.

Matthew 16.27,28 - NKJV

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Apparently, you don't see 27 and 28 as the same event. But, I believe it is the same event because there is just no indication in this text that they are separate. Just because you want them to be separate does not mean that they are. This is totally the same discourse that was started in verse 13. To separate these verses makes no literary sense whatsoever.

So these questions come to mind. When at the transfiguration did Christ "reward each according to his works"? Also, since the transfiguration was only six days later, it's important to ask which of the disciples had died in the interim since Jesus said only some of them would not taste death? He did not say, "all of you who are standing here shall not taste death till you see the Father glorify the Son of Man."

So you see, the transfiguration just does not fit.

Pastor Didy

Didymus wrote:

Okay, let's examine that possibility.

Matthew 16.27,28 - NKJV

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Apparently, you don't see 27 and 28 as the same event. But, I believe it is the same event because there is just no indication in this text that they are separate. Just because you want them to be separate does not mean that they are. This is totally the same discourse that was started in verse 13. To separate these verses makes no literary sense whatsoever.

So these questions come to mind. When at the transfiguration did Christ "reward each according to his works"? Also, since the transfiguration was only six days later, it's important to ask which of the disciples had died in the interim since Jesus said only some of them would not taste death? He did not say, "all of you who are standing here shall not taste death till you see the Father glorify the Son of Man."

So you see, the transfiguration just does not fit.

Pastor Didy

Just a few more additional details...

1. Luke 9:28 says it may have been up to 8 days before the transfiguration allowing for another 30% of additional time for folks to die

2. There is more chance for people to die if Jesus was addressing more than just the 12 disciples gathered there, which many preterists believe was the case, at least according to Mark's account.

3. What about the angels? I didn't see them at the transfiguration...

Didymus,

Peter said [NKJV, 2 Peter 1:16-18], "We have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to him from the Excellent Glory....on the holy mountain."

Peter corroborated Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts. Peter said that he did "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Jesus did not say he would see angels, nor the rewarding of every man. But Peter did see Moses and Elijah rewarded with "the resurrection to life" [John 5:29]. Jesus only said, "they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Peter's account should be a sufficient explanation. But I will try to answer the points you made.

In Matthew 16:27 and 28, Jesus spoke of the same event - his coming again. But Jesus did not say "they" would see everything about his coming. Neither did he suggest, or imply, others would die or need to die. Jesus only stated that "some" will not die until "they see".

The "six" or "eight" argument does not consider that Luke counted time in a different manner than Matthew and Mark. "After six days" did not include the day Jesus spoke, nor the day of the transfiguration that Luke counted, "about eight days".

"additional details" #1, #2 - Jesus said nothing about others dying, just that "some" would not die "until they see".

#3 - Jesus only said, "they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" and made no reference to them seeing angels.

I conclude that Peter believed he saw Jesus coming in his kingdom. I find Peter taught from Psalm 110 that Jesus would be at the right hand of his Father "until I [Jehovah] make your [Jesus'] foes your footstool" [Acts 2:35]. Peter said also, And that He [Jehovah] may send Jesus Christ...whom heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" [Acts 3:20-21]. I find no way to explain that Jesus left his Father's throne in 70 A.D. Nor can I explain "the times of restitution" began in 70 A.D. Rather, I find Peter years later teaching that Jesus will return to establish God's kingdom, the 1000 year "day of Jehovah" [2 Peter 3:1-10; cp. 1:10-18].

Hope this helps.

Russ

truthseeker1959 wrote:

Didymus wrote:

Okay, let's examine that possibility.

Matthew 16.27,28 - NKJV

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Apparently, you don't see 27 and 28 as the same event. But, I believe it is the same event because there is just no indication in this text that they are separate. Just because you want them to be separate does not mean that they are. This is totally the same discourse that was started in verse 13. To separate these verses makes no literary sense whatsoever.

So these questions come to mind. When at the transfiguration did Christ "reward each according to his works"? Also, since the transfiguration was only six days later, it's important to ask which of the disciples had died in the interim since Jesus said only some of them would not taste death? He did not say, "all of you who are standing here shall not taste death till you see the Father glorify the Son of Man."

So you see, the transfiguration just does not fit.

Pastor Didy

Just a few more additional details...

1. Luke 9:28 says it may have been up to 8 days before the transfiguration allowing for another 30% of additional time for folks to die

2. There is more chance for people to die if Jesus was addressing more than just the 12 disciples gathered there, which many preterists believe was the case, at least according to Mark's account.

3. What about the angels? I didn't see them at the transfiguration...

Russell J Rankin wrote:

Didymus,

Peter said [NKJV, 2 Peter 1-18], "We have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to him from the Excellent Glory....on the holy mountain."

Peter corroborated Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts. Peter said that he did "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Jesus did not say he would see angels, nor the rewarding of every man. But Peter did see Moses and Elijah rewarded with "the resurrection to life" [John 5]. Jesus only said, "they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Peter's account should be a sufficient explanation. But I will try to answer the points you made.

In Matthew 16:27 and 28, Jesus spoke of the same event - his coming again. But Jesus did not say "they" would see everything about his coming. Neither did he suggest, or imply, others would die or need to die. Jesus only stated that "some" will not die until "they see".

The "six" or "eight" argument does not consider that Luke counted time in a different manner than Matthew and Mark. "After six days" did not include the day Jesus spoke, nor the day of the transfiguration that Luke counted, "about eight days".

"additional details" #1, #2 - Jesus said nothing about others dying, just that "some" would not die "until they see".

#3 - Jesus only said, "they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" and made no reference to them seeing angels.

I conclude that Peter believed he saw Jesus coming in his kingdom. I find Peter taught from Psalm 110 that Jesus would be at the right hand of his Father "until I [Jehovah] make your [Jesus'] foes your footstool" [Acts 2]. Peter said also, And that He [Jehovah] may send Jesus Christ...whom heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" [Acts 3-21]. I find no way to explain that Jesus left his Father's throne in 70 A.D. Nor can I explain "the times of restitution" began in 70 A.D. Rather, I find Peter years later teaching that Jesus will return to establish God's kingdom, the 1000 year "day of Jehovah" [2 Peter 3:1-10; cp. 1:10-18].

Hope this helps.

Russ

To me, it is hardly a statement of any significance for those who were there that SOME of them would still be alive (hence, MOST would be dead) if the fulfillment for that event was going to occur in about a week, when it is quite likely that NONE of those standing there had died! Unless there was a surprise plague that the Bible forgot to record...

To me, the passage in 2 Peter 1:16 speaks of several PAST things that Peter HAD MADE KNOWN...

2 Peter 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Those things that Peter had made known were in reference to Christ's first coming - the teaching ministry of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:5, 1:13; 4:13, etc.). Cunningly devised fables would not be in reference to the transfiguration but in reference to those teachings opposed to Christ's teachings! This particular portion has nothing to do with the transfiguration account. However the second portion does because Peter is bringing up a new, but related subject of being eyewitnesses of His majesty.

The transfiguration account is probably better explained by the following:

At first, there is Moses and Elijah with Jesus. Then there is just Jesus alone... Moses and Elijah represent the law and prophets (old covenant economy) and Jesus represents the new covenant. Soon, that vision would come to be fully realized when the old covenant economy was physically wiped out in 70 AD. It would be spiritually made of no effect at the cross.[b]

I'm a preterist, as most of you know, but I do see something interesting regarding the transfiguration that I hadn't noticed before (thanks to this discussion).

(Mark 8:38-9:1 NASB) "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

Mark 9:3-4 NASB
(3) and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. (in the glory of his Father; see Daniel 7:9 below)
(4) Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. (with the holy angels)

Angels are messengers who bring the word of God. In the above, Moses and Elijah can be said to be messengers; they were talking with Jesus.

(Daniel 7:9 NASB) "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.

Of course there are similarities between the transfiguration and Revelation, as well:

Matthew 17:6-7 NASB
(6) When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
(7) And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

Revelation 1:17 NASB
(17) When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

There may have been far more to the vision at the transfiguration than was revealed in the gospel accounts. What if John was not instructed to reveal it until he was on Patmos? (Just speculating with that one.)

Bev

Didymus,

Interesting that you refer to 1 Peter:
1:5 "salvation ready TO BE revealed at the last time"
Hebrews 9:27 "appear a second time...for salvation"

1:13 "the grace that is TO BE brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ"
Colossians 3:4 "When Christ, who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory"

4:13 "when his glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy"
5:1 "the glory that WILL BE revealed"
Romans 8:16 "heirs...joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together."

Peter wrote of the second appearing of Jesus, a time when he expected to be glorified with him and reign with him in his kingdom.

Peter began his first letter with the "living hope" (1:3-4), "an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you...." Yes, the prophets spoke of Jesus' first coming -- "the sufferings of Christ". They also spoke of "the glories that would follow" - his resurrection, ascension, and second appearing, and his kingdom (in that order).

In his second letter, Peter began by writing of a future hope, "for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:11). They were already in Christ; but they with Peter hoped in a kingdom in which Christ will reign. Therefore, Peter already introduced the future "power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". And "eyewitnesses of his majesty" is a repeat in Hebrew style of the previous statement. With these words Peter introduced the transfiguration, the vision he saw of Jesus coming in his kingdom.

I see no grammatical reason to separate Peter's words into two different things: a first coming / teaching and a figurative coming. The transfiguration was a "vision" - a vision of Jesus in great brightness. There is no need to make him into a symbol. Jesus will come again, the second time in power and great glory as a king over all nations. [Many are the Scriptures that describe this event, like Revelation 19 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17].

Neither is there anything in the vision (or in the Old Testament) to suggest Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets. In fact, the "old covenant" was removed at Jesus' death, wiped out...nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14). The veil in the temple torn in two literally accomplished the end of the Law. From that time, the Law was no longer of force; and God issued a new commandment and a new covenant at Pentecost, just fifty days after Jesus died [Romans 7 with Hebrews 8-10].

Moses and Elijah are dead, in the grave, waiting for the "better resurrection" (Hebrews 11). In vision they were alive and talking with the glorified Jesus. Jesus and Peter both spoke of the resurrection and Jesus coming a second time.

I suggest it is simple theology to view the transfiguration as a vision of "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" when he descends out of heaven to receive from the dead all the righteous to reign with him.

Russ


[quote="truthseeker1959"]

Russell J Rankin wrote:

Didymus,
>>snip<<
To me, it is hardly a statement of any significance for those who were there that SOME of them would still be alive (hence, MOST would be dead) if the fulfillment for that event was going to occur in about a week, when it is quite likely that NONE of those standing there had died! Unless there was a surprise plague that the Bible forgot to record...

To me, the passage in 2 Peter 1:16 speaks of several PAST things that Peter HAD MADE KNOWN...

2 Peter 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Those things that Peter had made known were in reference to Christ's first coming - the teaching ministry of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:5, 1:13; 4:13, etc.). Cunningly devised fables would not be in reference to the transfiguration but in reference to those teachings opposed to Christ's teachings! This particular portion has nothing to do with the transfiguration account. However the second portion does because Peter is bringing up a new, but related subject of being eyewitnesses of His majesty.

The transfiguration account is probably better explained by the following:

At first, there is Moses and Elijah with Jesus. Then there is just Jesus alone... Moses and Elijah represent the law and prophets (old covenant economy) and Jesus represents the new covenant. Soon, that vision would come to be fully realized when the old covenant economy was physically wiped out in 70 AD. It would be spiritually made of no effect at the cross.[b]

Russ,

I am sorry, but I don't know what your talking about. You quoted TruthSeeker, but addressed me.

I have been busy with matters in my personal life. Let me tell you, when things go wrong, they really go wrong somtimes.

I hope life is better for you than it is for me.

God Bless.

Didymus wrote:

...
I have been busy with matters in my personal life. Let me tell you, when things go wrong, they really go wrong somtimes.

Hey Tom, I'm praying that, with God's help, you get whatever personal matters you are facing worked out.

Bev

Bev,

Yes, interesting observations. Revelation, Daniel, and Matthew 17 were all visions. The reality is that Jesus is in heaven beside his Father; and, like Moses, has received the brightness of his Father. So, like Moses when he left the presence of Jehovah, Jesus will be in the glory / brightness of his Father.

It may be also helpful to transliterate the Greek "metamorphothe" for "transfigured". Jesus was metamorphosized before their eyes, that is Peter, James, and John saw Jesus change as the vision began. After the vision, they saw Jesus as he was, a normal human being.

Men like Moses and Elijah can be called "messengers". But I think in Matthew 16:27 is better understood as Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31, "with His [Jehovah's] angels; or, "with his [Jesus'] angels. I don't recall any place where Jesus used angels in reference to human messengers.

BTW, I find these vision good text to show Jesus is different a different person than his Father.

Russ

Once4all wrote:

I'm a preterist, as most of you know, but I do see something interesting regarding the transfiguration that I hadn't noticed before (thanks to this discussion).

(Mark 8:38-9:1 NASB) "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

Mark 9:3-4 NASB
(3) and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. (in the glory of his Father; see Daniel 7:9 below)
(4) Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. (with the holy angels)

Angels are messengers who bring the word of God. In the above, Moses and Elijah can be said to be messengers; they were talking with Jesus.

(Daniel 7:9 NASB) "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.

Of course there are similarities between the transfiguration and Revelation, as well:

Matthew 17:6-7 NASB
(6) When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
(7) And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

Revelation 1:17 NASB
(17) When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

There may have been far more to the vision at the transfiguration than was revealed in the gospel accounts. What if John was not instructed to reveal it until he was on Patmos? (Just speculating with that one.)

Bev

Russell J Rankin wrote:

Didymus,

Interesting that you refer to 1 Peter:
1:5 "salvation ready TO BE revealed at the last time"
Hebrews 9:27 "appear a second time...for salvation"

1:13 "the grace that is TO BE brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ"
Colossians 3:4 "When Christ, who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory"

4:13 "when his glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy"
5:1 "the glory that WILL BE revealed"
Romans 8:16 "heirs...joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together."

Peter wrote of the second appearing of Jesus, a time when he expected to be glorified with him and reign with him in his kingdom.

Peter began his first letter with the "living hope" (1:3-4), "an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you...." Yes, the prophets spoke of Jesus' first coming -- "the sufferings of Christ". They also spoke of "the glories that would follow" - his resurrection, ascension, and second appearing, and his kingdom (in that order).

In his second letter, Peter began by writing of a future hope, "for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:11). They were already in Christ; but they with Peter hoped in a kingdom in which Christ will reign. Therefore, Peter already introduced the future "power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". And "eyewitnesses of his majesty" is a repeat in Hebrew style of the previous statement. With these words Peter introduced the transfiguration, the vision he saw of Jesus coming in his kingdom.

I see no grammatical reason to separate Peter's words into two different things: a first coming / teaching and a figurative coming. The transfiguration was a "vision" - a vision of Jesus in great brightness. There is no need to make him into a symbol. Jesus will come again, the second time in power and great glory as a king over all nations. [Many are the Scriptures that describe this event, like Revelation 19 and 1 Thessalonians 4-17].

Neither is there anything in the vision (or in the Old Testament) to suggest Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets. In fact, the "old covenant" was removed at Jesus' death, wiped out...nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14). The veil in the temple torn in two literally accomplished the end of the Law. From that time, the Law was no longer of force; and God issued a new commandment and a new covenant at Pentecost, just fifty days after Jesus died [Romans 7 with Hebrews 8-10].

Moses and Elijah are dead, in the grave, waiting for the "better resurrection" (Hebrews 11). In vision they were alive and talking with the glorified Jesus. Jesus and Peter both spoke of the resurrection and Jesus coming a second time.

I suggest it is simple theology to view the transfiguration as a vision of "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" when he descends out of heaven to receive from the dead all the righteous to reign with him.

Russ

Russ,

One thing thou lackest is TIMING.

Three disciples witnessed the transfiguration event about a week later. If you believe the transfiguration event is what Jesus "prophesied" about in the previous two verses (Matthew 16:27-28), then you are sorely wrong because of the TIMING.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

MOST would taste death (die) by the time when the Son of man comes in His kingdom - BUT NOT ALL. Why would Jesus have to mention those who would not taste of death in the first place? Would it be because there was a certain time factor involved that necessitated the fact that many would die - BUT NOT ALL?

If you think Jesus thought for even a nanosecond that MOST of those standing there would DIE in that 6-8 day period, you probably also believe that the "this generation" of Matthew 24:34 did not apply to the one Jesus was addressing! You might not believe Jesus in the following verse either:

John 4:20-21 – Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Not only did Christ say worship would cease to exist in Jerusalem, but He also said it would cease within her lifetime, providing consistency within the disciples’ generation of Matthew 24:34!

It is true that the old covenant was made invalid at the cross, but its practice was still ongoing, and still practiced by the vast majority of Jews. The temple services continued right up until 70 AD.

You must have missed the part in Hebrews that said:

Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The first part of that verse unquestionably states the the OC had been made of no force, invalid, and old, but the second part, also without question, states that which was "old"was ready to vanish away!

So, if you believe the OC had already been "wiped out," as you say, please tell me what the author of Hebrews meant when he said that which has been made "old" (in reference to the first covenant) is ready to (had not yet) vanish away?

Hopefully, you understand the two-word phrase "ready to" as referring to a short time frame. Millions of others are unable to grasp that simple fact.

And while we are in Hebrews, can you tell me what "the day approaching" referenced that these first century Hebrew Christians were expecting in the following verse:

Hebrews 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

And then please tell me why the author of Hebrews told his first century audience that they needed to exercise patience so that they could receive their promise and that this "day" would be arriving fairly soon in these two verses:

Hebrews 10:36-37 - For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have -one the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Now, most Christians, believe it or not, understand the KJV's "a little while" and "will NOT tarry" to refer to a period of thousands of years. I guess they do not believe what the Hebrew author said to those first century saints. Do you?

You might even want to look at the KJV phrase "a little while" more closely. About half of the translations render it as "a very little while" in an attempt to reflect the meaning of one of the Greek adverbs "oson." Please note that the KJV does not translate any of them! You don't have to be a Greek expert to notice the DOUBLE USAGE of that adverb:

Majority Text
ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ.

1550 Stephanus New Testament
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου χρονιει

1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου χρονιει

Greek New Testament (with variants)
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου Aχρονισει TSBχρονιει

Westcott-Hort (with Strong’s numbers)
ετιG2089 ADV γαρG1063 CONJ μικρονG3397 A-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οG3588 T-NSM ερχομενοςG2064 V-PNP-NSM ηξειG2240 V-FAI-3S καιG2532 CONJ ουG3756 PRT-N χρονισειG5549 V-FAI-3S

Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament (with Strong’s numbers)
ετιG2089 ADV γαρG1063 CONJ μικρονG3397 A-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οG3588 T-NSM ερχομενοςG2064 V-PNP-NSM ηξειG2240 V-FAI-3S καιG2532 CONJ ουG3756 PRT-N χρονιειG5549 V-FAI-3S

The only translation I have encountered that correctly renders those two Greek words is by J.N. Young...now why is that? Could it be that the bulk of translators were trying to hide what the text clearly meant? We all know that their nature of Christ's second appearing concerned physical events, and this verse was contradicting everything they believed.

So, do you believe "a very, very little" means thousands of years? I guess that is the question you really need to ask yourself. I most certainly do not and you can be sure that those first century Hebrew Christians who received that epistle did not either. There would be no reason for them to have patience, to not forsake each others fellowship, and to "so much the more" exhort each other until "that day" arrived. These were very troubled times with much persecution. Many had fallen back into the ways of Judaism to avoid the persecution from the unbelieving Jews...

What did Peter mean when he wrote to his first century audience that "the end of all things was at hand"?

1 Peter 4:7 - But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

I truly hope you would be willing to take the time to address those very specific questions of mine in bold red font.

Thanks and blessings!

Once4all wrote:

Didymus wrote:

...
I have been busy with matters in my personal life. Let me tell you, when things go wrong, they really go wrong somtimes.

Hey Tom, I'm praying that, with God's help, you get whatever personal matters you are facing worked out.

Bev

Thanks Bev,

Some of those problems worked out to day, so that's one thing, and I don't have to be that busy, nor distressed.

Well it's time.

Good night y'all.

TS,

One thing we both lack is a statement from Jesus in any of the Gospel accounts that,
>>
MOST would taste death (die) by the time when the Son of man comes in His kingdom - BUT NOT ALL.
>>
Jesus said nothing about whether others would die, or not die. However, as Jesus stated, three did not die until they saw Jesus coming in his kingdom - in a vision. Jesus prophesied about his disciples seeing this event in a vision.

Jesus spoke to the people only in parables that were not clear to them. Then privately he explained what he meant to his disciples. In this instance, Jesus showed in a vision what he meant, and told his disciples to not tell about what they say until after he was raised from the dead.

TIMING
What I think about Matthew 23:34-38 --
Jesus prophesied about the time from Pentecost to 70 A.D., "this generation" or the time of these events in verses 34-38. Verse 39, "see me no more >till< you say" covers the time from Jesus' burial >until< he descends from heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Acts 3:19-21).

What I think about Matthew 24:1-20 --
Jesus prophesied about the time from Pentecost to 70 A.D. Verses 21-31 covers the time from 70 A.D. to when Jesus descends out of heaven, and "they [all peoples] will >see< the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Revelation 1:7).

What I think about Matthew 24:32-34 --
Jesus prophesied about the budding of the nations, including Israel. Israel has been scattered among the nations (just as Moses said in Deuteronomy 28:64ff) until our time. This budding (described in Joel 3) is happening in our time. So, "this generation" speaks to the time of "all these things" in verses 4-29; "it is near" refers to Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (24:36).

What I think about John 4:20-21 is the same as you wrote, except for Matthew 24:34 I explained above. But Matthew 23:34-39 applies to this text. Yes, the Jews continued to keep the Law on past Jesus' death until 70 A.D. And yes, "worship" ceased in "this mountain" (in Samaria) and in "Jerusalem" in 70 A.D. Paul speaks to this in Romans 10:1-4. However, the timing of "true worshipers" who "worship the Father in spirit and truth" began at Pentecost and continued past her lifetime and passed 70 A.D.; it continues even to today.

It is late, so I will reply to Hebrews 8-10 later, except to suggest reading Hebrews 8:13 ("In that He says", A new covenant") in the context of when Jehovah spoke these words to Jeremiah around 600 years before it was fulfilled.

BTW, it was the apostle Paul who said that Jesus "wiped out the handwriting of requirements.... And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Colossians 2:24).

Good night .... or better, good morning :>)

Russ

>>>>>>>

Russ,

One thing thou lackest is TIMING.

Three disciples witnessed the transfiguration event about a week later. If you believe the transfiguration event is what Jesus "prophesied" about in the previous two verses (Matthew 16:27-28), then you are sorely wrong because of the TIMING.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

MOST would taste death (die) by the time when the Son of man comes in His kingdom - BUT NOT ALL. Why would Jesus have to mention those who would not taste of death in the first place? Would it be because there was a certain time factor involved that necessitated the fact that many would die - BUT NOT ALL?

If you think Jesus thought for even a nanosecond that MOST of those standing there would DIE in that 6-8 day period, you probably also believe that the "this generation" of Matthew 24:34 did not apply to the one Jesus was addressing! You might not believe Jesus in the following verse either:

John 4:20-21 – Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Not only did Christ say worship would cease to exist in Jerusalem, but He also said it would cease within her lifetime, providing consistency within the disciples’ generation of Matthew 24:34!

It is true that the old covenant was made invalid at the cross, but its practice was still ongoing, and still practiced by the vast majority of Jews. The temple services continued right up until 70 AD.

>>snip<<

Thanks and blessings![/quote]

Russell J Rankin wrote:

TS,

One thing we both lack is a statement from Jesus in any of the Gospel accounts that,
>>
MOST would taste death (die) by the time when the Son of man comes in His kingdom - BUT NOT ALL.
>>
Jesus said nothing about whether others would die, or not die. However, as Jesus stated, three did not die until they saw Jesus coming in his kingdom - in a vision. Jesus prophesied about his disciples seeing this event in a vision.

Russ,

I have a white car with a blue top. That statement precludes any other possible color combination. So do I have to tell that my car does not have any other color scheme?

Since Jesus said some will not die, does he have to say that others will. Don't you think that was understood to whom he was speakig to? Again you appear to be referring to the transfiguration by which time you say three did not die. You are really stretching a point. By the time of the transfiguration none of the disciples died.

Did I mention I have a white car with a blue top. But for your benefit, I will tell you that my car is not blue with a green top. It is not a black car with a gold top, etc.

So since Jesus only said some would not die, you seem to be saying that since Jesus did not say that others would die, that precludes the probability that others would die. By making this twist of understanding, you are trying to prove that the transfiguration would fit what Jesus said in Matthew 16.28.

Why can't you just accept what Jesus did say, instead of putting words in his mouth? There are warnings about adding to Scripture.

TS,

In Hebrews 8:13, the author referred to Jehovah's statements by Jeremiah to Israel, quoted also in 8:10-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34): "In that He [Jehovah] says, 'A new covenant'" was spoken some 600+ years earlier. When Jehovah said, "a new covenant" [600 years earlier], "He has made the first [covenant] obsolete." Jehovah planned to remove the first covenant by Jesus' death on the cross. When Jehovah spoke, it was a good as finished. This is why the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "wiped out" the first covenant, "nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14). So, "ready" refers to the time from Jeremiah to Jesus; and "vanish away" refers to the day Jesus died.

Hebrews 10:25, "the day approaching" = Jesus' second appearing (9:28), when he descends from heaven (10:12-13, "waiting [at the right hand of God] until").

Hebrews 10:35-39 follows, "knowing that you have a better and enduring possession for yourselves in heaven." This is the "great reward" and "the promise" " and "the saving of your souls." [Compare chapter 11]. The author placed the time of their salvation when "he [Jesus] shall appear the second time" - stated already in 9:28. Then "he who is coming will come" refers to the time when Jesus "shall appear the second time". Therefore, "for yet a very little time" is equal to "from that time waiting until his enemies are made His footstool" in 10:12. Jesus is still waiting and mediating as high priest at the right hand of his Father in heaven.

To God who spoke these words through the prophets, two days is "a very little while". First century Hebrew Christians looking to the "day" would understand the varied uses of the Hebrew "yom" (or, "day"). Prophetically, "days" held also a meaning of "years"; and they understood Psalm 90:4, a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." They expected the kingdom would be restored to Israel "after two days...in the third day" [Hosea 6:2]. Therefore, to these Hebrew Christians, who expected a visible return of their Messiah and literal kingdom on the earth with a literal Jerusalem which Jehovah built (11:10), were not under the illusion that Jesus would only come in their lifetime.

Jesus himself preached, "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). Yet, he explained that the kingdom would not "immediately appear" but he would go away for a time then return (Luke 19:12ff). So did Peter, but knew Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own power" (Acts 1:7). Also, Peter heard Jesus explain that his people (the Jews) would be "led away captive into all nations" for a long time after they saw armies surround and destroy Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-28). Peter also knew their "inheritance" was "reserved in heaven for you...salvation ready to be revealed in the last time...at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:4-5).

Therefore, I conclude with Peter, "He [Jehovah] shall send Jesus Christ, who before was preached unto you; whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:20-21).

If I have missed answering any of your questions, please ask again.

Russ


[quote="truthseeker1959"]

Russell J Rankin wrote:

Russ,
>>snip<<
You must have missed the part in Hebrews that said:

Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The first part of that verse unquestionably states the the OC had been made of no force, invalid, and old, but the second part, also without question, states that which was "old"was ready to vanish away!

So, if you believe the OC had already been "wiped out," as you say, please tell me what the author of Hebrews meant when he said that which has been made "old" (in reference to the first covenant) is ready to (had not yet) vanish away?

Hopefully, you understand the two-word phrase "ready to" as referring to a short time frame. Millions of others are unable to grasp that simple fact.

And while we are in Hebrews, can you tell me what "the day approaching" referenced that these first century Hebrew Christians were expecting in the following verse:

Hebrews 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

And then please tell me why the author of Hebrews told his first century audience that they needed to exercise patience so that they could receive their promise and that this "day" would be arriving fairly soon in these two verses:

Hebrews 10:36-37 - For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have -one the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Now, most Christians, believe it or not, understand the KJV's "a little while" and "will NOT tarry" to refer to a period of thousands of years. I guess they do not believe what the Hebrew author said to those first century saints. Do you?

You might even want to look at the KJV phrase "a little while" more closely. About half of the translations render it as "a very little while" in an attempt to reflect the meaning of one of the Greek adverbs "oson." Please note that the KJV does not translate any of them! You don't have to be a Greek expert to notice the DOUBLE USAGE of that adverb:

Majority Text
ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ.

1550 Stephanus New Testament
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου χρονιει

1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου χρονιει

Greek New Testament (with variants)
ετι γαρ μικρον οσον οσον ο ερχομενος ηξει και ου Aχρονισει TSBχρονιει

Westcott-Hort (with Strong’s numbers)
ετιG2089 ADV γαρG1063 CONJ μικρονG3397 A-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οG3588 T-NSM ερχομενοςG2064 V-PNP-NSM ηξειG2240 V-FAI-3S καιG2532 CONJ ουG3756 PRT-N χρονισειG5549 V-FAI-3S

Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament (with Strong’s numbers)
ετιG2089 ADV γαρG1063 CONJ μικρονG3397 A-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οσονG3745 K-ASN οG3588 T-NSM ερχομενοςG2064 V-PNP-NSM ηξειG2240 V-FAI-3S καιG2532 CONJ ουG3756 PRT-N χρονιειG5549 V-FAI-3S

The only translation I have encountered that correctly renders those two Greek words is by J.N. Young...now why is that? Could it be that the bulk of translators were trying to hide what the text clearly meant? We all know that their nature of Christ's second appearing concerned physical events, and this verse was contradicting everything they believed.

So, do you believe "a very, very little" means thousands of years? I guess that is the question you really need to ask yourself. I most certainly do not and you can be sure that those first century Hebrew Christians who received that epistle did not either. There would be no reason for them to have patience, to not forsake each others fellowship, and to "so much the more" exhort each other until "that day" arrived. These were very troubled times with much persecution. Many had fallen back into the ways of Judaism to avoid the persecution from the unbelieving Jews...

What did Peter mean when he wrote to his first century audience that "the end of all things was at hand"?

1 Peter 4:7 - But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

I truly hope you would be willing to take the time to address those very specific questions of mine in bold red font.

Thanks and blessings!

Russell J Rankin wrote:

So, "ready" refers to the time from Jeremiah to Jesus; and "vanish away" refers to the day Jesus died.

You evidently have no idea what the word "NOW" meant by the author of Hebrews in his address to those first century Hebrew Christians...

Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

When the author said this it was several years after the events you are describing...

This is probably my last post here...wait and see.

Didymus,

I am suggesting Jesus' words "some standing here" refers to "Peter, James, and John his brother" who were standing there (16:24).

I am also suggesting that Peter confirms he was one of those standing there that saw Jesus coming in his kingdom - in a vision on the holy mountain.

I offer no suggestion as to what happened to the others standing there.

Russ

Didymus wrote:

Russell J Rankin wrote:

TS,

One thing we both lack is a statement from Jesus in any of the Gospel accounts that,
>>
MOST would taste death (die) by the time when the Son of man comes in His kingdom - BUT NOT ALL.
>>
Jesus said nothing about whether others would die, or not die. However, as Jesus stated, three did not die until they saw Jesus coming in his kingdom - in a vision. Jesus prophesied about his disciples seeing this event in a vision.

Russ,
>>snip<<
Since Jesus said some will not die, does he have to say that others will. Don't you think that was understood to whom he was speakig to? Again you appear to be referring to the transfiguration by which time you say three did not die. You are really stretching a point. By the time of the transfiguration none of the disciples died.
>>snip<<
So since Jesus only said some would not die, you seem to be saying that since Jesus did not say that others would die, that precludes the probability that others would die. By making this twist of understanding, you are trying to prove that the transfiguration would fit what Jesus said in Matthew 16.28.

Why can't you just accept what Jesus did say, instead of putting words in his mouth? There are warnings about adding to Scripture.

TS,

Hebrews 8:13, "Now" is the Greek word "de":

The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Wesley J. Perschbacher, ed.)
>>
(1161) de, a conjunctive particle, marking the super-addition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceded, and it may be variously rendered, 'but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc.;
>>

So, "de" / "now" indicates a grammatical connection.

Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-19),
"I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill....one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus also said (John 17:4),
"I have finished the work which You gave me to do."

Russ

truthseeker1959 wrote:

Russell J Rankin wrote:

So, "ready" refers to the time from Jeremiah to Jesus; and "vanish away" refers to the day Jesus died.

You evidently have no idea what the word "NOW" meant by the author of Hebrews in his address to those first century Hebrew Christians...

Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

When the author said this it was several years after the events you are describing...

This is probably my last post here...wait and see.