U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-24-2010, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,680,231 times
Reputation: 1699

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Yes, I've got that part, but isn't the emphasis on this part of the verse?:

Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'

IOW, where does it say (for or against) that John would not die prior to Jesus' return? I don't see it saying one way or the other. Am I missing something here?
Verse 23 to me says "Jesus didn't say he would not EVER die but, if he doesn't die until after I return what is that to you? You'll be dead. "

One thing we know from this is that Peter would die before the return of Christ. The other thing we know is that John would live longer than Peter and may see Christ's return.

It certainly doesn't elaborate one way or another, but it is interesting that tradition has it that John was alive during the 70Ad destruction.

IMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2010, 05:04 AM
 
Location: SC Foothills
8,830 posts, read 10,020,313 times
Reputation: 58210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I don't read it saying that John will remain, but rather:

Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'

I read the word "if" as perhaps, or perhaps not; maybe or maybe not, to remain. Actually, Jesus does not really answer Peter's question directly other than it was not any concern of Peter's as to what would happen to John, right?

I'm not really arguing for or against the text if John would see Christ's return. I guess I'm arguing for the text being ambiguous and not necessarily saying what the OP implies. But hey, you ladies (I think?) go for it. Never tell a woman no .
I agree with you AlabamaStorm....the text is way too ambiguous to suggest what the OP is saying is a concrete meaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,703 posts, read 1,801,556 times
Reputation: 903
I agree also with AlabamaStorm, I understand it as Jesus says, "if it be so or not, it doesn't concern you", I think verse 23 actually implies the opposite of thrillobyte's conclusion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Frisco, TX
7,559 posts, read 11,906,156 times
Reputation: 4519
Agree also - the emphasis in Jesus' remarks aren't when He will or won't return, but "What is that to thee? - Follow thou me!!"

The Father Himself knows the day and the hour of His revealing (and it will be a spiritual unveiling).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,680,231 times
Reputation: 1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by little elmer View Post
Agree also - the emphasis in Jesus' remarks aren't when He will or won't return, but "What is that to thee? - Follow thou me!!

The Father Himself knows the day and the hour of His revealing (and it will be a spiritual unveiling).
I agree... there are plenty of other verses that support a past return.

The Matt. 16:28 (and Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) passage is a much better proof text. IMO Especially when compared with the other "some standing here" verses such as Matt. 27:47 etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 10:08 AM
 
11,272 posts, read 11,290,108 times
Reputation: 3474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilene Wright View Post
I agree with you AlabamaStorm....the text is way too ambiguous to suggest what the OP is saying is a concrete meaning.
If this text is ambiguous, then just about everything Jesus said is ambiguous as well. And if everything Jesus said is ambiguous and we can argue, "Well, if you look at the verse this way, it could mean the exact opposite of what the words imply on the surface" then why are we following such an ambiguous Person?

It depends on which side of the Preterist/Futurist fence we are standing. Naturally, futurists vehemently oppose the meaning of Jesus' words because it shoots to pieces their theories about the rapture and the tribulation being yet to come. So better to cast doubt on Jesus' words with twists and turns and grand rationalizations on the meaning of "if", much like Clinton did with "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Jesus usually was pretty straightforward in His meaning when He spoke. If Jesus had no intentions of bringing His Return into the conversation He could merely have said, "If I will that He stays alive after you die what is that to you?" If He brought His Return into the conversation it must mean exactly what it says, "If I will that he remains alive when I return what is that to you?"

I'm sure there's someone out there who could pick apart, "Go and sin no more." Well, what is Jesus really referring to when He says, 'no more'? Does He mean no more forever or does He really mean no more today, or this week, or this month, or this year? I think we've got to get away from allowing our own biases about the date of Jesus' return influence our interpretations of scriptures and just look at what the words themselves mean. Otherwise we'll forever be bickering and arguing amongst ourselves and looking even more foolish in the eyes of the world than we already do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 12:55 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,393,852 times
Reputation: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
So better to cast doubt on Jesus' words with twists and turns and grand rationalizations on the meaning of "if", much like Clinton did with "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Are you saying I'm nit picking words like Bill did before the GJ when confronted with getting a BJ from Monica? That's not very nice...

Let me rephrase my answer then: I think the ambiguity of the verse is not ambiguous .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 03:31 PM
 
11,272 posts, read 11,290,108 times
Reputation: 3474
Let's go back to the third point I made in my last response. The issue has been raised: Christ probably was not referring to His coming back as much as He was trying to make a point to Peter, "Why are you worrying about him (John) You keep your eyes on the prize, Me!"

If that's the case, then someone please tell me why Jesus didn't just say that? Why would He interject into a totally different issue (Peter's dedication to Christ) something about His return when it had absolutely nothing to do with Peter's first responsibility, which was to follow Jesus?

From my vantage point, it would be totally illogical for Jesus to word His statement the way He did unless He wanted Peter to know two things: 1. that He WAS returning very soon. So soon, in fact, that John would still be alive when He did, and 2. John being alive when Jesus DID return had absolutely nothing to do with Peter's first job, which was not to be worrying about John's time of death, or whether John would outlive him or not, but to be following Jesus and His commands to him.

Is this making sense to anyone, that Jesus wouldn't bring up His return to earth in the statement He was giving to Peter if He could just as easily have gotten His point across to Peter without raising even the vaguest reference to His return?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,494,473 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I'm not sure what I am.

I believe there is some evidence (Jesus' own words here, for example) to give credence that He has already returned, or else His words have been badly mangled by translators (not that uncommon). Yet other texts in the Bible suggest He hasn't.

I definitely refute the idea of the rapture. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill. But I'm really undecided about Jesus' return. I guess that makes me a "partial-preterist-in-waiting."
We are in agreement, then. All is well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 03:51 PM
 
Location: New Zealand
4,250 posts, read 660,518 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Let's go back to the third point I made in my last response. The issue has been raised: Christ probably was not referring to His coming back as much as He was trying to make a point to Peter, "Why are you worrying about him (John) You keep your eyes on the prize, Me!"

If that's the case, then someone please tell me why Jesus didn't just say that? Why would He interject into a totally different issue (Peter's dedication to Christ) something about His return when it had absolutely nothing to do with Peter's first responsibility, which was to follow Jesus?

From my vantage point, it would be totally illogical for Jesus to word His statement the way He did unless He wanted Peter to know two things: 1. that He WAS returning very soon. So soon, in fact, that John would still be alive when He did, and 2. John being alive when Jesus DID return had absolutely nothing to do with Peter's first job, which was not to be worrying about John's time of death, or whether John would outlive him or not, but to be following Jesus and His commands to him.

Is this making sense to anyone, that Jesus wouldn't bring up His return to earth in the statement He was giving to Peter if He could just as easily have gotten His point across to Peter without raising even the vaguest reference to His return?
Thrillobyte,

You are making sense and I have an idea that it relates to layers of instruction and understanding

He did return in 70AD in judgment on Jerusalem and I believe that there is judgment brewing now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top