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.
The scripture that entails "they would not taste death" is only in Matthew, and cannot be compared to Mark 8, where this language was not used. It is obvious that this message was an entirely private matter only mentioned to the disciples as noted in Matt 16:24
Mark 8 is the feeding of the mutitude and Matthew 16 is AFTER that feeding.
Matt 16:9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
Mark 8:1 In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and saith unto them,
Why are you all straying from the context of Matthew to prove the point of the transfiguration?
Stay in context.
12-06-2009, 03:30 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Some of the problems I see with the transfiguaration is that it takes the coming of the Son of Man in verse 28 as a preview of the Second coming. Although the transfiguration may be a preview the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ is not preview language. This seems to be an ad hoc attempt to salvage a problem with the preconceived idea of futurism. There is no indication in the text or otherwise why we should see the phrase as a preview here and not elsewhere. Furthermore, in the transfiguration there is no coming with a reward or His angles as seen in verse 27. This verse is clearly speaking of the 2nd Coming. Lastly, the context completely disassociates Jesus’ words by a six day period in Chapter 17:1. The six days are too short to give rise to the words of Christ – none of the disciples died nor was it likely that they were going to die within the next 6 days.
In Luke’s account (9:28-36) he mentions that when Moses and Elijah (The Law and the Prophets which testify to Christ) appeared that they spoke to Jesus about his departure (death). The focus seems to be on The Son’s recognition and confirmation, by the Father, regarding the glory of the Messiah – who He truly was – God’s Son and Savior, so pay attention to Him. In II Peter 1:16-21, Peter mentions ‘We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.’ The coming or presence spoken of here was His 1st coming and the power that was associated with it through the signs and wonders which Christ performed demonstrating that He was the Messiah. This truth was confirmed by the Father and witnessed by Peter, James, and John when Christ was transfigured. When Peter says that ‘the prophetic word was confirmed’ he is talking about the OT Scriptures (The Law [Moses] and the Prophets [Elijah]) regarding the 1st coming of the Messiah which were testified to by the Father’s voice, coming from within the cloud, regarding His Son.
In verses 3-4 Peter talks about partaking of the divine nature in order to escape the power of sin through God’s divine power. It is this power and nature of Christ that was displayed on the Mount of Transfiguration. This is not some preview of the second coming or His kingdom but the display and confirmation of Jesus being God in the flesh, the long awaited Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world (v.1).
The implication is that it was going to be a longer period than just six days for Jesus to die, resurrect, ascend, to preach the gospel to the cites in Jerusalem, Judea, and the world (the known world), and then to return. But according to Jesus that period of time, seemingly, was certainly not going to be beyond their lifetime - hence they would not taste death before he came back.
Some people try to separate the ‘coming’ in verse 27 with the ‘coming’ in verse 28. The first is the Second Coming and the latter is the spiritual kingdom after Jesus’ resurrection (in power and glory). The problems with this are that there is no justification to split the two; also the kingdom in one sense was already spiritually present when Christ was ministering (Matt.12:28, 16:19, 21:43 Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3-7). If the kingdom was already present in a spiritual sense when Christ said this (Matt.16:28) He would not be talking about that kingdom but the future kingdom in all its glory and power when He returned.
Furthermore, in the above verses (Matt.12:28, 16:19, 21:43 Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3-7) the point might be that the King of the present spiritual kingdom (the good news taking root in the hearts of people – John 3:3-7) is in their midst not that the kingdom itself and all its glory and manifestation was present. The keys of the kingdom (16:19) are the power of the kingdom or the power of the King who rules that kingdom – and His delegated authority to those who believe in order to do the work of the King. The taking away of the kingdom and giving it to another (21:43) is just the offer given by the King being rejected by the Jewish leadership – they did not want Him to rule over them. In other words because of their rejection they were not going to part of the future coming kingdom.
This verse combined with the Matt.10:23 seems to suggest the second coming which is likened to the first - A PHYSICAL APPEARANCE - but with power and glory, and judgment, and ruling from His throne in Jerusalem.
I am honestly having a hard time seeing a Futurist or Preterist explanantion. Unless there is some sort of PROCESS (which Luke seems to not suggest when he says the kingdom does not come with observation; by which he means slowly but it comes as the lighting - suddenly with power and glory and judgment) where the the coming of the Son of Man is all of the work of Messiah from the Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming with some sort of interim between the Ascension and return. In other words Jesus's coming was interupted by the disobediance of Israel as a nation. But why did he not see this and why prophecy as if the COMPLETION of that process was going to happen within the disciples liftime?
The bottom line is what does the 'Son of Man comes in His Kingdom' mean? And It had to happen before some (at least two) of the disciples tasted death.
It does not fit the Transfiguration
It does not fit the Resurrection
It does not fit the Ascension
It does not fit the Spritual Kingdom followers - it was already present Matt.12:28
It does not fit Pentecost - even if the Physical kingdom was delayed and the spiritual kingdom put in place because of the rejection of Israel there was no coming with a reward or angels.
It does not fit 70 A.D. - even if you spiritualize it the second coming was patterned after the First - PHYSICAL APPEARING - except it would be in judgement and glory.
When one spritualizes things the ability to make the interpretation FIT becomes easier because the verses and symbols are more flexible. Yet there are still aspects that are missing from the spiritual interpretations.
This is very troubling and it only gets worse when we adds more timing verses.
The kingdom is spiritual...this is the first step in deciphering anything that Christ proclaims when He comes in His kingdom, anything outside ofthat, is unscriptural.
12-06-2009, 04:18 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Yes it is spiritual but it is also physical. When Jesus said this in Matt.16:28 what kingdom was he talking about and what aspects accompany that kingdom? It is clear that when he spoke this He said that the Kingdom was already present in Matt.12:28 by virture of His presence and miracles that he did - so how could he say he was yet to come in the spiritual kingdom with angels, judgmnet, and reward in an appearing where they would see the kingdom - Luke's parallel account?
Well thought out. The first problem I have with that is.. why would Jesus tell them they wouldn't taste of death before the transfiguration when Luke states it was 8 days away? What was so threatening to them that Christ would say they would not taste of death in eight days?
Also, Luke 9 has that they will not taste of death until they see the Kingdom of God. So another avenue to figure this out is to ask.. was the transfiguration considered the coming of the kingdom of God? in Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
So it could be that the kingdom of God came at the transfiguration...yet later in the chapter (v 24) For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
So it is certainly unclear if the kingdom of God that is within us or among us is the same as his second coming but I don't see how it can be the transfiguration.. perhaps Pentecost?
Romans 14:17 states For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
After the transfiguration Jesus tells those who witnessed it not to tell others about it.. so it was not a widely known event for some time, perhaps even until Christ died. (see Luke 9).
To throw another wrench in: 1 Thess. 1:5-7 All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.
So 1 Thess. seems to say that they will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God and makes it sound like it is yet future when Jesus is revealed.
I'm still on the fence here as to what the disciples would witness before they tasted of death. I don't think it was the transfiguration because of the "some of you" implying that there would be a death before the event and we know that not one of them died before the transfiguration 8 days or so later.
What do you think?
Also I found this:
Matt. 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
So yet another question to ponder...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Some of the problems I see with the transfiguaration is that it takes the coming of the Son of Man in verse 28 as a preview of the Second coming. Although the transfiguration may be a preview the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ is not preview language. This seems to be an ad hoc attempt to salvage a problem with the preconceived idea of futurism. There is no indication in the text or otherwise why we should see the phrase as a preview here and not elsewhere. Furthermore, in the transfiguration there is no coming with a reward or His angles as seen in verse 27. This verse is clearly speaking of the 2nd Coming. Lastly, the context completely disassociates Jesus’ words by a six day period in Chapter 17:1. The six days are too short to give rise to the words of Christ – none of the disciples died nor was it likely that they were going to die within the next 6 days.
In Luke’s account (9:28-36) he mentions that when Moses and Elijah (The Law and the Prophets which testify to Christ) appeared that they spoke to Jesus about his departure (death). The focus seems to be on The Son’s recognition and confirmation, by the Father, regarding the glory of the Messiah – who He truly was – God’s Son and Savior, so pay attention to Him. In II Peter 1:16-21, Peter mentions ‘We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.’ The coming or presence spoken of here was His 1st coming and the power that was associated with it through the signs and wonders which Christ performed demonstrating that He was the Messiah. This truth was confirmed by the Father and witnessed by Peter, James, and John when Christ was transfigured. When Peter says that ‘the prophetic word was confirmed’ he is talking about the OT Scriptures (The Law [Moses] and the Prophets [Elijah]) regarding the 1st coming of the Messiah which were testified to by the Father’s voice, coming from within the cloud, regarding His Son.
In verses 3-4 Peter talks about partaking of the divine nature in order to escape the power of sin through God’s divine power. It is this power and nature of Christ that was displayed on the Mount of Transfiguration. This is not some preview of the second coming or His kingdom but the display and confirmation of Jesus being God in the flesh, the long awaited Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world (v.1).
The implication is that it was going to be a longer period than just six days for Jesus to die, resurrect, ascend, to preach the gospel to the cites in Jerusalem, Judea, and the world (the known world), and then to return. But according to Jesus that period of time, seemingly, was certainly not going to be beyond their lifetime - hence they would not taste death before he came back.
Some people try to separate the ‘coming’ in verse 27 with the ‘coming’ in verse 28. The first is the Second Coming and the latter is the spiritual kingdom after Jesus’ resurrection (in power and glory). The problems with this are that there is no justification to split the two; also the kingdom in one sense was already spiritually present when Christ was ministering (Matt.12:28, 16:19, 21:43 Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3-7). If the kingdom was already present in a spiritual sense when Christ said this (Matt.16:28) He would not be talking about that kingdom but the future kingdom in all its glory and power when He returned.
Furthermore, in the above verses (Matt.12:28, 16:19, 21:43 Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3-7) the point might be that the King of the present spiritual kingdom (the good news taking root in the hearts of people – John 3:3-7) is in their midst not that the kingdom itself and all its glory and manifestation was present. The keys of the kingdom (16:19) are the power of the kingdom or the power of the King who rules that kingdom – and His delegated authority to those who believe in order to do the work of the King. The taking away of the kingdom and giving it to another (21:43) is just the offer given by the King being rejected by the Jewish leadership – they did not want Him to rule over them. In other words because of their rejection they were not going to part of the future coming kingdom.
This verse combined with the Matt.10:23 seems to suggest the second coming which is likened to the first - A PHYSICAL APPEARANCE - but with power and glory, and judgment, and ruling from His throne in Jerusalem.
I am honestly having a hard time seeing a Futurist or Preterist explanantion. Unless there is some sort of PROCESS (which Luke seems to not suggest when he says the kingdom does not come with observation; by which he means slowly but it comes as the lighting - suddenly with power and glory and judgment) where the the coming of the Son of Man is all of the work of Messiah from the Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming with some sort of interim between the Ascension and return. In other words Jesus's coming was interupted by the disobediance of Israel as a nation. But why did he not see this and why prophecy as if the COMPLETION of that process was going to happen within the disciples liftime?
The bottom line is what does the 'Son of Man comes in His Kingdom' mean? And It had to happen before some (at least two) of the disciples tasted death.
It does not fit the Transfiguration
It does not fit the Resurrection
It does not fit the Ascension
It does not fit the Spritual Kingdom followers - it was already present Matt.12:28
It does not fit Pentecost - even if the Physical kingdom was delayed and the spiritual kingdom put in place because of the rejection of Israel there was no coming with a reward or angels.
It does not fit 70 A.D. - even if you spiritualize it the second coming was patterned after the First - PHYSICAL APPEARING - except it would be in judgement and glory.
When one spritualizes things the ability to make the interpretation FIT becomes easier because the verses and symbols are more flexible. Yet there are still aspects that are missing from the spiritual interpretations.
This is very troubling and it only gets worse when we adds more timing verses.
I will post the next one soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Yes it is spiritual but it is also physical. When Jesus said this in Matt.16:28 what kingdom was he talking about and what aspects accompany that kingdom? It is clear that when he spoke this He said that the Kingdom was already present in Matt.12:28 by virture of His presence and miracles that he did - so how could he say he was yet to come in the spiritual kingdom with angels, judgmnet, and reward in an appearing where they would see the kingdom - Luke's parallel account?
Actually the more i look into these things from the various ways of interpreting biblical prophecies, such as the ideal, historic, preterist, and futurist interpretations ... I am beginning to see that the coming of Christ is not a one time or even and two time event. If we take the transfiguration, then the resurrection and ascension, then the event at Pentecost, and the the judgment of Israel is 70 AD etc ... It appears that the coming of the kingdom may be understood as occurring in multiple stages until the eventual manifestation of the reign of Christ with an iron rod and the subjection of all the nations under him finally occurs.
The Kingdom first came without observation, as the ministry of the Gospel by the wondrous works of Christ, then by the secret transfiguration as a witness to the three disciples of Christ perhaps as a testimony of his divine nature, and then to the rest of the disciples and even the Pharisees at the resurrection, and then to the nations of the known world at the time as well at Pentecost, ad perhaps finally in the future when he will appear to judge the world and rule with a rod of Iron over the nations.
Perhaps the problem is in thinking that there are only two stages in the revelation of the kingdom of God ... And that all prophesies concerning Christs comming or the coming of the kingdom must be defined by one of only two events.
It is certainly worth more meditation and prayer, as i am not claiming to have all the answers.
The scripture that entails "they would not taste death" is only in Matthew, and cannot be compared to Mark 8, where this language was not used. It is obvious that this message was an entirely private matter only mentioned to the disciples as noted in Matt 16:24
Mark 8 is the feeding of the mutitude and Matthew 16 is AFTER that feeding.
Matt 16:9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
Mark 8:1 In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and saith unto them,
Why are you all straying from the context of Matthew to prove the point of the transfiguration?
Stay in context.
I am not straying out of Context ...
Mar 8:34-9:1
34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
This is talking about the same things as is spoken of in Matt 16:28, only Mark tells us what Matthew and Luke did not, that being that there were other people among them(beside the disciples) when Christ said these things.
Perhaps you should reread the gospels ... Then you would realize i am not out of context ...
What youare claiming is something I struglled with for a long time, called dual fulfillment and perpetual fulfillments. Something that was revealed to me that just cannot happen. The scripture is prophetic in this regard, and this coming, Parousia, is a one time event, as Paul, Peter, John and Jesus as well as others Old and New Testament, testified to happen at one single momnet and event. Unfortunately, this claim is noble, and definitely endearing, but is not aligned with scripture, and can only be deduced as false. Something I feel, you will soon enough, realize.
Mar 8:34-9:1
34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
This is talking about the same things as is spoken of in Matt 16:28, only Mark tells us what Matthew and Luke did not, that being that there were other people among them(beside the disciples) when Christ said these things.
Perhaps you should reread the gospels ... Then you would realize i am not out of context ...
Yes it is. Matthew 16 begins after the multitude has been fed, Mark 8 is the feeding of the multitude. They are both out of context. You need to reread the gospels, and align the time texts properly, divide it rightly.
Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
That is a private matter, to only the disciples...not the multitude.
Matt 15:39 And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.
It seems to me that if it were not for the fact that Christ had to die for the sins of the world then the complete coming of the kingdom of God would have occurred and remained at the time of the transfiguration of Christ. But he put off his glory to die for the sins of the world, and it seems that due to this and the unbelief of the people of Israel and the need for the grafting in of the gentile nations that a new dispensation became necessary before the completion of the coming of Christ in power and authority to rule the nations with an iron rod. The harvest was not yet ripe at the time of the transfiguration and i believe is still not at this time though i believe that it is coming into final fruition in our time. I believe the dispensation between the transfiguration and the coming of Christ to rule the nations is the time of the gentiles(Luk 21:24) which must come to its fullness first.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 12-06-2009 at 05:41 PM..
Yes it is. Matthew 16 begins after the multitude has been fed, Mark 8 is the feeding of the multitude. They are both out of context. You need to reread the gospels, and align the time texts properly, divide it rightly.
Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
That is a private matter, to only the disciples...not the multitude.
You're blind if you cannot see that Mar 8:34-9:1 Is the same dialogue as Mat 16:24-28 ... I will not argue the point with you ... I'm tired of arguing with you.
Mark 8:34-9:1 (King James Version)
34And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
The same as ...
Matthew 16:24-28 (King James Version)
24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28Verily 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.
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.
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.
