• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Matthew 16:28

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Matthew 17 follows on from this starting....

Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.+ 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant* as the light.+ 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.+ Listen to him.”+

This vision was seen by the 3 apostles. It was a surety that Jesus would be the head of the heavenly kingdom. They saw a glimps, by means of this vision, of Jesus future role in the heavenly kingdom.

So yes, 'some of those standing here shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom"

As for Matthew 17..which as nothing to do with Matthew 16:28. Which Jesus Christ stated "there be some standing here, which will not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom"
Which there were some still alive to witness the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ coming in his Kingdom.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
What questions are you talking about??
It seems you say a lot but give nothing in support of what your saying..

I'm talking about Historical questions and answers. Knowing Historically that Yeshua/Jesus was Crucified, was Buried and Rose Again on the third day Cannot Save anybody.

It appears to you that I give nothing in support of what I'm saying. Public Theology are for those who Hear Publicly.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I believe the evidence that Jesus didn't come as expected is pretty clear as Paul at first tells members of the flock not to marry, but later then he allows for that "weakness" when it appears that Jesus many not come that soon.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
I believe the evidence that Jesus didn't come as expected is pretty clear as Paul at first tells members of the flock not to marry, but later then he allows for that "weakness" when it appears that Jesus many not come that soon.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


Indeed, If you cannot do Celibacy than to marry is better than Fornication. It's not possible to do Real Celibacy with Historical Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures/Bible. When you Compensate for Lifelong Celibacy with other Fleshly Things it is not Real Celibacy.

Doubt (2008) - Dinner scene
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm talking about Historical questions and answers. Knowing Historically that Yeshua/Jesus was Crucified, was Buried and Rose Again on the third day Cannot Save anybody.

It appears to you that I give nothing in support of what I'm saying. Public Theology are for those who Hear Publicly.
There is some historical evidence that there was a Jesus. Also there is historical evidence for the crucifixion. There is no historical evidence for the resurrection and historical evidence against the burial.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
There is some historical evidence that there was a Jesus. Also there is historical evidence for the crucifixion. There is no historical evidence for the resurrection and historical evidence against the burial.

These evidences are all Speculation. None of them can be proved as Conclusive Evidences. The Nature of the Historical Yeshua/Jesus is Absolute Uncertainty.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
I agree. We cannot really know if Jesus existed or not.

Earthly Christians agree with Atheists that you Cannot Really know if Yeshua/Jesus existed or not, because it's Undeniable Truth from the Historical Perspective. Really what we see here is that Earthly Christians and Atheists are United. Are there any members on these forums that are able to challenge these statements?

The Few Elect hundred/thousand Heavenly Christians know with Absolute Certainty that Yeshua/Jesus exists.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Earthly Christians agree with Atheists that you Cannot Really know if Yeshua/Jesus existed or not, because it's Undeniable Truth from the Historical Perspective. Really what we see here is that Earthly Christians and Atheists are United. Are there any members on these forums that are able to challenge these statements?

The Few Elect hundred/thousand Heavenly Christians know with Absolute Certainty that Yeshua/Jesus exists.
That is incorrect. It is not undeniable truth from the historical perspective. The evidence for him is rather weak. But it is strong enough to say that he probably existed.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
That is incorrect. It is not undeniable truth from the historical perspective. The evidence for him is rather weak. But it is strong enough to say that he probably existed.

It's Undeniable Truth that you cannot know with Absolute Certainty that Yeshua/Jesus existed from an Historical Perspective. Anyone can Falsify History given that they have a motive for doing so. Are there any Christians on these forums that are able to challenge these statements?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's Undeniable Truth that you cannot know with Absolute Certainty that Yeshua/Jesus existed from an Historical Perspective. Anyone can Falsify History given that they have a motive for doing so. Are there any Christians on these forums that are able to challenge these statements?
What is this silly fixation on "Undeniable Truth"?
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
Given the the responses on Matthew 16:28 the only way you can make sense of the Scripture is the Interpretation it has been Fulfilled. This is because the only way that the Historical Yeshua/Jesus can Supposedly Unify the teachings of the Holy Scriptures/Bible is by stating this or that has already been fulfilled or this or that is for a future time.

The Spiritual/Heavenly Yeshua/Jesus is Not limited by Time.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
In the book of Matthew 16:28, We find Christ Jesus saying ---" 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"
The same is referenced in Mark 8:27- 9:1, Luke 9:18-27, and Matthew 16:13-28; where I believe it is referring to the Gentile Pharisaic Christianized Church that Simon the stumbling stone (petros) would establish - Still 'Standing' until the coming Judgement.

If we looked at the sentence structure in Greek it is mainly in plural; which to me, means it is referring to a whole body of people being referred to.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Given the the responses on Matthew 16:28 the only way you can make sense of the Scripture is the Interpretation it has been Fulfilled. This is because the only way that the Historical Yeshua/Jesus can Supposedly Unify the teachings of the Holy Scriptures/Bible is by stating this or that has already been fulfilled or this or that is for a future time.

The Spiritual/Heavenly Yeshua/Jesus is Not limited by Time.
What? No. The most reasonable explanation is that it is only another failed prophecy of the Bible.. Jesus was supposed to come back during the lifetime of at least some of his disciples and that never happened..
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The most reasonable explanation is that it is only another failed prophecy of the Bible.. Jesus was supposed to come back during the lifetime of at least some of his disciples and that never happened..
If the contexts supplied in each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:13-28, Mark 8:27- 9:1, Luke 9:18-27) is referencing the Church that Simon the stumbling stone (petros) would Establish, and the language shows it is speaking about plural... It isn't only referencing the disciples being spoken to.

The same when people try to misappropriate "in this generation" within the Parable of the Fig statements (Matthew 24:32-35, Mark 13:28-31, Luke 21:29-33), and saying this is referencing Yeshua's time period; the very nature of what is being discussed, is about the timing of the Judgement Day Fire, when these things are removed, as prophesied in the Tanakh.

Saying Yeshua thought it happened in that time period, contradicts his own statements about a time of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), and then removes much of the Tanakh prophecy he was referencing.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
What? No. The most reasonable explanation is that it is only another failed prophecy of the Bible.. Jesus was supposed to come back during the lifetime of at least some of his disciples and that never happened..

Matthew 28:18

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


This is a Heathen Atheist Perspective that is Biased to Discrediting the Bible. On other hand, Earthly Christians affirm that this Scripture has already been Fulfilled or it's for a Future time maintaining the Integrity of the Holy Scriptures/Bible.

Where are the Earthly Christians? You are meant to Dominating these Heathen Atheists. Power on the Earth belongs to Earthly Christians through Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If the contexts supplied in each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:13-28, Mark 8:27- 9:1, Luke 9:18-27) is referencing the Church that Simon the stumbling stone (petros) would Establish, and the language shows it is speaking about plural... It isn't only referencing the disciples being spoken to.

The same when people try to misappropriate "in this generation" within the Parable of the Fig statements (Matthew 24:32-35, Mark 13:28-31, Luke 21:29-33), and saying this is referencing Yeshua's time period; the very nature of what is being discussed, is about the timing of the Judgement Day Fire, when these things are removed, as prophesied in the Tanakh.

Saying Yeshua thought it happened in that time period, contradicts his own statements about a time of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), and then removes much of the Tanakh prophecy he was referencing.

In my opinion. :innocent:
That verse does not refute his prophecy of returning while some of the disciples were still alive. He also predicted that only some of them would be alive when he returned. It was not that all of them would be alive and that it would be before their supposed woes and travails that they would go through. If one honestly reads the Bible it is full of self contradictions and failures. That is why Christians had to invent "Apologetics". It is a fancy term that sounds so much better than "Lying for Jesus".
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
That verse does not refute his prophecy of returning while some of the disciples were still alive.
Where does that verse say anything about 'disciples'; fair enough we could say he is speaking to them about specific prophecy, as all of the context shows, and who is that prophecy about?

Since he was addressing the Church that would be built in his name, I'd say it was referring to a multitude who'd be condemned at Judgement Day.
He also predicted that only some of them would be alive when he returned.
In Jewish thought as far as I understand 'death' is when a soul ceases to exist, as they believe in reincarnation...

Thus I'm not sure he said some would be 'alive' at the return, as that would mean many of the prophecies being cited by Yeshua in the Tanakh, he completely contradicted by not understanding the timeline presented.

As it speaks about a time of wickedness (Zechariah 5), where a city would be built upon bloodshed (Habakkuk 2), and then the Judgement would come at the return.
If one honestly reads the Bible it is full of self contradictions and failures.
I'd agree with you that the Bible is full of contradictions, and many are there on purpose.

Where we can show that John, Paul, & Simon were Pharisaic, and deliberately contradicted what the earlier Ebionite Church followed.
That is why Christians had to invent "Apologetics". It is a fancy term that sounds so much better than "Lying for Jesus".
Considering in my understand jy+sus (יסוס), & jy+ses (יסס) are an insult in ancient Hebrew, and Christianity was made up after Yeshua's death to corrupt his message; then we should try understanding the legitimacies, before trying to debunk it.

I agree they had to lie though, as their ideologies don't actually align with what was prophesied on purpose, and then they've tried to fill in all the gaps.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Where does that verse say anything about 'disciples'; fair enough we could say he is speaking to them about specific prophecy, as all of the context shows, and who is that prophecy about?

Since he was addressing the Church that would be built in his name, I'd say it was referring to a multitude who'd be condemned at Judgement Day.

In Jewish thought as far as I understand 'death' is when a soul ceases to exist, as they believe in reincarnation...

Thus I'm not sure he said some would be 'alive' at the return, as that would mean many of the prophecies being cited by Yeshua in the Tanakh, he completely contradicted by not understanding the timeline presented.

As it speaks about a time of wickedness (Zechariah 5), where a city would be built upon bloodshed (Habakkuk 2), and then the Judgement would come at the return.

I'd agree with you that the Bible is full of contradictions, and many are there on purpose.

Where we can show that John, Paul, & Simon were Pharisaic, and deliberately contradicted what the earlier Ebionite Church followed.

Considering in my understand jy+sus (יסוס), & jy+ses (יסס) are an insult in ancient Hebrew, and Christianity was made up after Yeshua's death to corrupt his message; then we should try understanding the legitimacies, before trying to debunk it.

I agree they had to lie though, as their ideologies don't actually align with what was prophesied on purpose, and then they've tried to fill in all the gaps.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
Oh my, excessive breaking up a post. I do not respond to that. It is rather rude.

It is a pity that you will not allow yourself to understand your own holy book. When it has failures, such as Jesus's failed prophesy to his disciples, you have to go into a long song and dance how that is not literal.

Do you go into the same song and dance about the myths of Genesis? I am just curious.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
That verse does not refute his prophecy of returning while some of the disciples were still alive. He also predicted that only some of them would be alive when he returned. It was not that all of them would be alive and that it would be before their supposed woes and travails that they would go through. If one honestly reads the Bible it is full of self contradictions and failures. That is why Christians had to invent "Apologetics". It is a fancy term that sounds so much better than "Lying for Jesus".
Does one mean, if I have correctly understood, that the "Christians" borrowed the word "Apologetics" from the French/Latin/Greek (neither from Hebrew and nor Aramaic the Languages of Yeshua and Meriam/Maryam) and used it as " Lying for Jesus" or " Lying in the name of Jesus " as did Hellenist Paul acknowledge*, please?:
*Romans 3:7 King James Version
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
ROMANS 3:7 KJV "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

Right?
_____________
*| Search Online Etymology Dictionaryapologetic
 
Last edited:
Top