Matthew 16:27-28

[Jerry]

Where does the Bible say it is fiction?

Where did I say that the bible said it was fiction?

 

[Panache]

The issue of rather the bible is fiction or not is a RedHarring and doesn't pertain to the question of the OP at all.

Well, it pertains somewhat (although tangentially) to the OP because the only reason to think that Mat 16:28 could mean anything other than Jesus saying that some of the folks standing around at the time would live to see his second coming, is because that was two millenia ago, and most folk aren't inclined to believe that there are 2000+ year old people wandering around.

Of course if it is fiction than it is reasonable to think that either there are in fact 2000+ year old folk wandering around, or that Jesus was wrong or lying.

But if one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth, and is unwilling to accept that there could be some living people who are a couple millenia old, it leads them to look for another explanation for the passage rather than its immediately apparent and obvious meaning.

Personally I don't need the Bible to be Absolute Truth in order to validate my existence, but neither am I going to completely discount the notion that the homeless guy across the street might by a few thousand years old.

I think that the meaning in Mat 16:28 is unambiguous, and clearly states that some of the folks who were listening to Jesus that day would still be alive when the second coming came around. I am still waiting to see a compelling argument for either the Ressurection or the Transfiguaration.

Or an alternative interpretation if someone wants to bring something new to the table...

 

[Jerry]

Well, it pertains somewhat (although tangentially) to the OP because the only reason to think that Mat 16:28 could mean anything other than Jesus saying that some of the folks standing around at the time would live to see his second coming, is because that was two millenia ago, and most folk aren't inclined to believe that there are 2000+ year old people wandering around.

Of course if it is fiction than it is reasonable to think that either there are in fact 2000+ year old folk wandering around, or that Jesus was wrong or lying.

But if one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth, and is unwilling to accept that there could be some living people who are a couple millenia old, it leads them to look for another explanation for the passage rather than its immediately apparent and obvious meaning.

Personally I don't need the Bible to be Absolute Truth in order to validate my existence, but neither am I going to completely discount the notion that the homeless guy across the street might by a few thousand years old.

I think that the meaning in Mat 16:28 is unambiguous, and clearly states that some of the folks who were listening to Jesus that day would still be alive when the second coming came around. I am still waiting to see a compelling argument for either the Ressurection or the Transfiguaration.

Or an alternative interpretation if someone wants to bring something new to the table...

Well, I have nothing new to bring. I accept the bible as true and credable (though I don't know who you were referring to by "....one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth...", nore do I know what "Absolut Truth", capitole A and T, is, be it a document or whatever) and I read that passage as literal; and don't see the general, seculer idea of a person living for thousands of years to be out of the relm of possability....current medical knowledge, yes, but I also assume that Jesus knew allot more then than we do today.

 

[dthmstr254]

Where did I say that the bible said it was fiction?

Lets say that the bible was thought up and printed last year; Let's say that everyone shakes hands and agrees that it's obviously a work of pure fiction.......that's still what the book says.

obvious enough?

 

[Gibberish]

obvious enough?

Please come back when you can follow the conversation. :2wave:

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Jerry,

Well, I have nothing new to bring. I accept the bible as true and credable (though I don't know who you were referring to by "....one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth...", nore do I know what "Absolut Truth", capitole A and T, is, be it a document or whatever) and I read that passage as literal; and don't see the general, seculer idea of a person living for thousands of years to be out of the relm of possability....current medical knowledge, yes, but I also assume that Jesus knew allot more then than we do today.

Ok now I understand.

 

[Panache]

though I don't know who you were referring to by "....one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth...", nore do I know what "Absolut Truth", capitole A and T, is, be it a document or whatever

For myself, the Bible could be true, could be complete fiction, could be mostly true with bits that were just wrong, or mostly fiction with bits that were true.

It doesn't really bother me one way or another.

Many people on the other hand not only believe that the Bible is the Absolute Truth, but in fact need it to be the Absolute Truth. Such people, when faced with information they accept conflicting with other information they accept will alter the meaning of the information so that they can keep on accepting it.

For example, if someone accpets that acknowledging the Bible as being the Ultimate Truth in the universe is the path to their salvation, and also accepts that people don't live for 2000 years, then they are forced to either change the meaning of the Bible in order to continue accepting it.

Otherwise they must either reject that the Bible is the Ultimate Truth, or they must reject the notion that people don't live for 2000 years.

 

[Panache]

My take is this: As I see it, the life which is commonly referred to in the bible is clearly not life as we understand it, being the life of the body. Christianity is about the soul, that which is assumed to be there that makes life more than just the functioning of human organs. When we speak of eternal life, obviously no one's body lives forever, so obviously that's referring to something else. We live through God, God is a real force that is everywhere and in everything, and our bodies are simply tools by which we have means of interacting with God, and when our bodies die what remains of us is the effect our bodies had while under our control. By this notion, obviously many of the people who were with Jesus Christ are still alive and well today, despite the obvious death of all of their bodies.

Interesting. So think that when he said "shall not taste of death" he didn't count physically dying as "tasting of death?"

Lets suppose you are correct. Does that mean you don't believe in the Ressurection? It stands to reason that you can't be Ressurected if you have never tasted of death.

 

[Panache]

I'm not sure I get where you're going here. Resurrection of the body could be possible, I've certainly never seen it, but I think the reference to resurrection when it comes to Christ is that they killed his body and he still lived, which became apparent once they started to get past the mourning of the death of his body (thusly he was resurrected unto them, as they realized the life he lived was not one of his body).

I actually was referring to the prophecied ressurection that is supposed to come around Judgement time. It was either the Pharases or the Sadducces who didn't believe in it and Jesus criticized them for it, so clearly he thought that everyone was going to be ressurected after they died.

Furthermore, if people don't really die, because their spirit keeps on existing, then the Serpent didn't lie when she told Eve "you shall not surely die" and God did lie when he told Adam that he would.

 

[Jerry]

obvious enough?

Erm, no....

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

Furthermore, if people don't really die, because their spirit keeps on existing, then the Serpent didn't lie when she told Eve "you shall not surely die" and God did lie when he told Adam that he would.

erg I need to finish our conversation in that other thread don't I.. been busy.

This is a definition thing. Humans have a body, a soul, and a spirit as defined from the Bible, I think if I remeber correctly( I should know). I think by definition God himself cannot "die" but the body he possesed did. Bodies are just matter, they come and go, from dust to dust as it says. Spirits and souls are eternal so death means something different for them. Death means apart from God when talked in the spirt/soul manner. One has to be keen on the difference when talking about scripture.

 

[moolanus]

Matthew 16:27-28
Quote:
16:27 For 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.

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.
So what do all y'all Christian folk think?

Common attempts to explain this apparent discrepancy are that it refers to the transfiguration, the fall of Jeruselam in 70 AD, the Pentacost, the Ressurection, or the spread of the Gospel.

The immediatly apparent meaning is that "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" while some of the folks he was saying this to are still alive.

I think the most defensible position is that there is some 2000 year old dude still wandering around, probably listening to Led Zepplin on his ipod right now, waiting for Jesus to come back and reward every man according to his works.

ANSWER: It is amazing to me how many "Christians" out there don't understand or even read their Bible. Also, it is nearly impossible to translate the Bible when verses are taken out of context. With that being said, if you read the next two verses and you will learn that three of the disciples went with Jesus up a high mountain and he was transfigured before them. TA-DA!

 

[Jerry]

Furthermore, if people don't really die, because their spirit keeps on existing, then the Serpent didn't lie when she told Eve "you shall not surely die" and God did lie when he told Adam that he would.

This is the way I see it.....

In context, "die" meant a literal, phisical death.

The choice:
A. Eat from the Tree of Life and literaly live forever with God; or
B. Eat of the Tree of Knowledge and end up dieing.

Eve came to Adam and was like "yo, check this sh!t out", and Adam was all "is all good dawg, les jus chill", Eve's all "no fruit, no sex", and Adam was like "daYmn", and the rest is history.

Now, the serpent's diseption layed in what would happen if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, as the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge itself wasn't responsible for Adam and Eve dieing. The fruit didn't kill them, just as the serpant said it wouldn't.

But God didn't say that the fruit would kill them, He said that they would die if they ate it; see the diference there?

Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and the fruit didn't kill them, just like the serpent said, but Adam and Eve were denied access to the Tree of Life as a consiquence, and so they died a natural death of old age, just as God said they would.

 

[dthmstr254]

Please come back when you can follow the conversation. :2wave:

I had no problem figuring out. You stated quite plainly that if we agreed that the Bible was complete fiction, it wouldn't matter, cause "the book already says that.

 

[Panache]

ANSWER: It is amazing to me how many "Christians" out there don't understand or even read their Bible. Also, it is nearly impossible to translate the Bible when verses are taken out of context. With that being said, if you read the next two verses and you will learn that three of the disciples went with Jesus up a high mountain and he was transfigured before them. TA-DA!

REBUTTAL: It is amazing to me how many "debators" out there don't understand, or even read the posts to which they are replying. Also, it is nearly impossible to translate an argument when taken out of context. With that being said, if you read the OP, which you quoted in your own post, you will quickly discover that the transfiguartion was already brought up as a common attempt to justify Mat 16:28. See the bold:

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.
So what do all y'all Christian folk think?

Common attempts to explain this apparent discrepancy are that it refers to the transfiguration, the fall of Jeruselam in 70 AD, the Pentacost, the Ressurection, or the spread of the Gospel.

The immediatly apparent meaning is that "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" while some of the folks he was saying this to are still alive.

I think the most defensible position is that there is some 2000 year old dude still wandering around, probably listening to Led Zepplin on his ipod right now, waiting for Jesus to come back and reward every man according to his works.

Furthermore, if you followed the conversation just a little long, you would discover that I have already given reasons why the Transfiguration does not adequately explain the verse.

Firstly, its silly to say "some of you will not taste of death for the whole six frickin' days before you see me cumming in all my glory."

Secondly, those "next three verses" are in fact a whole other chapeter, whereas 16:27 was in the same chapter immediately preceding 16:28, implying that 16:28 was to emphasizes 16:27, and that Chapter 17 began a new thought.

If 16:28 began a new thought, it would have been included at the beginning of chapter 17, rather than at the end of chapter 16.

Thirdly, there were indicators that 16:28 was emphasis upon 16:27, which specifically refers to Jesus rewarding every man according to his works.

Since you seem to think the transfiguration theory is a new revelation that none of us had thought of, I shall repost my argument for this from earlier in the thread for you:

Perhaps if this "truly I say to you" business was regularly used to separate one topic from another this would have some merit, but "truly I say to you" is overwelmingly used in the New Testement to emphasise a topic which is already being discussed.

A few examples to start with...

Mat 6:5
Mat 6:16
Mat 8:10
Mat 10:42
Mat 17:20
Mat 21:21
Mat 25:45
Mark 9:41
Luke 12:37

If you could show how "truly I say to you" is used to indroduce a new topic in any of these, that would be great. Or if you prefer, you could find a similar list of examples of the phrase being used to introduce a new topic elsewhere in the New Testement.

I think the phrase is clearly and overwhelmingly used to emphasize what was said in the earlier verse, and as such suggests that Mat 16:28 is in direct reference to Mat 16:27, which is clearly referring to the Second Coming.

 

[Panache]

This is the way I see it.....

In context, "die" meant a literal, phisical death.

The choice:
A. Eat from the Tree of Life and literaly live forever with God; or
B. Eat of the Tree of Knowledge and end up dieing.

Eve came to Adam and was like "yo, check this sh!t out", and Adam was all "is all good dawg, les jus chill", Eve's all "no fruit, no sex", and Adam was like "daYmn", and the rest is history.

I agree.

Now, the serpent's diseption layed in what would happen if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, as the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge itself wasn't responsible for Adam and Eve dieing. The fruit didn't kill them, just as the serpant said it wouldn't.

With you so far...

But God didn't say that the fruit would kill them, He said that they would die if they ate it; see the diference there?

Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and the fruit didn't kill them, just like the serpent said, but Adam and Eve were denied access to the Tree of Life as a consiquence, and so they died a natural death of old age, just as God said they would.

See, now in all the versions I have read God said "in the day you eat thereof." Now it seems to me that Adam and Eve did not die "in the day they ate thereof" but rather they died thousands of days after that.

 

[Jerry]

I agree.

With you so far...

See, now in all the versions I have read God said "in the day you eat thereof." Now it seems to me that Adam and Eve did not die "in the day they ate thereof" but rather they died thousands of days after that.

Sounds like your quoting King James. I'm partial to NIV myself, simply because I have a hard time reading old english...imagin my frustration in highschool when we had to read, understand and memorize shakspear....

Genesis 2:17
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:3
"but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: die

I suggest that this is an issue of translating the Hebrew into any of the many styles and dialects of English.

 

[dthmstr254]

Sounds like your quoting King James. I'm partial to NIV myself, simply because I have a hard time reading old english...imagin my frustration in highschool when we had to read, understand and memorize shakspear....

Genesis 2:17
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:3
"but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: die

I suggest that this is an issue of translating the Hebrew into any of the many styles and dialects of English.

Hey, no problem here. I personally read both.