Some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God

MadHermit · Mar 16, 2019

This thread focuses on Mark 9:1 when in fact it should have focused on Matthew 16:28 and 10:23. Let me outline a way modern Bible scholarship might approach the relevant issues. But first some questions about Gospel sources must be addressed.

The scholarly consensus, both conservative and liberal, takes for granted that Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) have a common saying of Jesus source that they call Q (from the German "quelle" which means "source). Bible scholars then make their case for the original wording of specific sayings that affect our understanding of Jesus' teaching. In his book "Why I am not a Christian" famed British philosopher Bertrand Russell cites Matthew 10:23 (quoted below) as evidence that Jesus wrongly predicted His 2nd coming within the lifetime of some of His audience. This saying is located in Q's mission instructions to His disciples. But Luke 10:1 preserves the original version of this text in a way that removes the apparent error:

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matthew 10:23)."
"After this, the Lord sent 70 others ahead of Him into every town and place where He Himself was about to come (Luke 10:1).

This comparison shows that what Q is originally referring to is Jesus' commission of advance teams to notify and prepare each town for Jesus' upcoming arrival on a ministry mission, not His Second Coming!

But how can we know that Luke preserves the original version? By noticing how Matthew transforms Mark's wording of a saying on the kingdom coming in power into another saying on the coming Son of Man:

"Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28) ."
"And He said to them, Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power (Mark 9:1)."

The scholarly consensus, both conservative and liberal, takes this as well established on many grounds--that both Matthew and Luke (but not John) use Mark as a primary source for their Gospels. Thus, to get published in academic Bible journals, articles on Matthew and Luke must factor in how Matthew and Luke have edited Mark. So here Jesus predicts His Second Coming in the preceding saying in both Mark and Matthew. But Matthew deletes Mark's phrase "And He said to them" that changes the subject from the coming Son of Man to the kingdom coming with power and then changes Mark's wording in the next saying to continue the focus on the coming Son of Man.

So how does Mark understand 9:1? Well, after reporting Jesus' promise that "some standing" there will live to see that the kingdom has come with power, he continues by introducing the Transfiguration story with the phrase "6 days later" in 9:2. Mark normally (40 times) connects stories with the vague term "immediately." So why he exception in 9:2? Because Mark is telling us that it took just 6 days for Jesus' prediction about the kingdom to come true; with the return of Moses and Elijah and the glorified appearance of Jesus, the kingdom came in power through this supernatural revelation. But that fulfilment should probably be viewed as a preliminary fulfillment to a later one, perhaps in the power displayed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

delirious · Mar 16, 2019

MadHermit said:

This is one reason why I fight for the full-preterist view of eschatology. Not only because I believe it is what the Scripture says but also because of men like Bertrand Russell. When 99% of Christianity holds to a future second coming of Christ and a man like Bertrand Russell comes along and says in Matt 10: 23 that Jesus promised to come in his lifetime that is a big problem for the Christian who believes in a future second coming.

I have seen atheists use Bertrand Russell's argument in debates with Christians. The argument is sound. My fellow Christians look stupid when they sit there and try to tell an Atheist, or someone like Bertrand, that the "last days" is 2,000 years and counting. Nobody who is unbiased will accept that argument and that is why many Christians fail engaging with non-believers. Ironically, it is the non-believer who is reading the text for what it says and not trying to manipulate it in those instances.

I am going to respond to other comments in your post #241 but I am going to break it up in bite size segments since I think you made a well-thought out post that deserves a full response.

Troubled65 · Mar 16, 2019

I know this might not answer the question, but after reading the gospel of John (last chapter)I have wondered if he wasn't speaking about John?

We know from Revelation that after Christ instructed him to seal up the 7 thunders, and write them not, that he would prophesy again.

Any one else think that could be the answer? I know the Lord said "some" not one, but just a thought.🤔

delirious · Mar 16, 2019

MadHermit said:

I don't agree with the assertion that Matt 10: 23 and Luke 10: 1 are referring to the same event for a number of reasons:

1. The number is 12 in Matthew and Mark's version. In Luke it is 70.
2. Both Matthew and Mark's version are well before the Transfiguration. Luke's version is after the Transfiguration.
3. In Matthew, Mark and Luke's versions, shortly after the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city", there is a change of topic. This would make the section immediately following in Matt 10: 16-23 a different subject not related to the sending out of the disciples.
4. Many of the examples given in Matt 10: 17-23 find parallel statements in the Olivet Discourse.
5. In Matt 10: 17-23 the disciples are brought before Gentiles and Jesus did not go to any Gentile cities so this could not have been Jesus following them.

We see that the "coming of the Son of Man" cannot be Jesus following behind them for these reasons. I have more comments to make in regards to your post #241 which I will include in my next post.

Mission21 · Mar 16, 2019

Interesting comment on

MadHermit said:

This thread focuses on Mark 9:1 when in fact it should have focused on Matthew 16:28 and 10:23. Let me outline a way modern Bible scholarship might approach the relevant issues. But first some questions about Gospel sources must be addressed.

The scholarly consensus, both conservative and liberal, takes for granted that Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) have a common saying of Jesus source that they call Q (from the German "quelle" which means "source). Bible scholars then make their case for the original wording of specific sayings that affect our understanding of Jesus' teaching. In his book "Why I am not a Christian" famed British philosopher Bertrand Russell cites Matthew 10:23 (quoted below) as evidence that Jesus wrongly predicted His 2nd coming within the lifetime of some of His audience. This saying is located in Q's mission instructions to His disciples. But Luke 10:1 preserves the original version of this text in a way that removes the apparent error:

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matthew 10:23)."
"After this, the Lord sent 70 others ahead of Him into every town and place where He Himself was about to come (Luke 10:1).

This comparison shows that what Q is originally referring to is Jesus' commission of advance teams to notify and prepare each town for Jesus' upcoming arrival on a ministry mission, not His Second Coming!

But how can we know that Luke preserves the original version? By noticing how Matthew transforms Mark's wording of a saying on the kingdom coming in power into another saying on the coming Son of Man:

"Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28) ."
"And He said to them, Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power (Mark 9:1)."

The scholarly consensus, both conservative and liberal, takes this as well established on many grounds--that both Matthew and Luke (but not John) use Mark as a primary source for their Gospels. Thus, to get published in academic Bible journals, articles on Matthew and Luke must factor in how Matthew and Luke have edited Mark. So here Jesus predicts His Second Coming in the preceding saying in both Mark and Matthew. But Matthew deletes Mark's phrase "And He said to them" that changes the subject from the coming Son of Man to the kingdom coming with power and then changes Mark's wording in the next saying to continue the focus on the coming Son of Man.

So how does Mark understand 9:1? Well, after reporting Jesus' promise that "some standing" there will live to see that the kingdom has come with power, he continues by introducing the Transfiguration story with the phrase "6 days later" in 9:2. Mark normally (40 times) connects stories with the vague term "immediately." So why he exception in 9:2? Because Mark is telling us that it took just 6 days for Jesus' prediction about the kingdom to come true; with the return of Moses and Elijah and the glorified appearance of Jesus, the kingdom came in power through this supernatural revelation. But that fulfilment should probably be viewed as a preliminary fulfillment to a later one, perhaps in the power displayed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

Interesting exegesis/interpretation..
- Using Q source theory.

delirious · Mar 16, 2019

MadHermit said:

Please see my post #185 in this thread for an explanation of this. Every time the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" is used by Jesus it always links what was said before with what follows. One more comment about your post #241 coming...

delirious · Mar 16, 2019

MadHermit said:

In Matt 16: 27-28 and the parallel texts in Mark 8: 38-9:1 and Luke 9: 26-27 we are told some very important details.

When Jesus comes with His kingdom He will reward every one according to their deeds. He will also be ashamed of anyone who has been ashamed of Him. Both these phrases indicate judgment and neither one of them happened at the Mount of Transfiguration or Pentecost and so Scripture rules those out as possible fulfillments of the text.

To say that some people standing there wouldn't die in the next 6 days is also a silly statement and was not Jesus' intending meaning. But if He was returning in judgment in about 40 years in 70 A.D. the statement now makes perfect sense. Some of them would still be alive when the second coming happened.

Locutus · Mar 16, 2019

I always go to Q for my answers on bible interpretation.

delirious · Mar 16, 2019

Troubled65 said:

I have heard futurists try to make this claim. That John is still walking the earth 2,000 years later. That makes him more than twice as old as Methuselah. It's as silly as the 6 day claim for not tasting death and the Transfiguration.

What Jesus was really saying to Peter was, "If I want John to remain alive until I come in A.D. 70 then what is that to you? You follow me."

And John did live to see it.

MadHermit · Mar 16, 2019

delirious said:

In Matt 16: 27-28 and the parallel texts in Mark 8: 38-9:1 and Luke 9: 26-27 we are told some very important details.

delirious: "When Jesus comes with His kingdom He will reward every one according to their deeds. He will also be ashamed of anyone who has been ashamed of Him. Both these phrases indicate judgment and neither one of them happened at the Mount of Transfiguration or Pentecost and so Scripture rules those out as possible fulfillments of the text."

You miss the point: as I noted, Mark's superfluous use of the phrase, "And He said to them," changes the subject from the coming Son of Man to the kingdom come with power. Matthew fails to recognize the change of subject and therefore deletes this transitional phrase in copying Mark. This makes your point about the ensuing Transfiguration irrelevant.

delirious: "To say that some people standing there wouldn't die in the next 6 days is also a silly statement and was not Jesus' intending meaning. "

Redaction criticism is the method used by modern scholarship to distinguish the evangelist's purpose from the purpose reflected in his sources. The application of this method here implies 2 points that you evidently overlook:
(1) Outside the Passion Narrative, Mark nowhere else does Mark specify the number of days between events. He prefers the less specific word "immediately" (Greek: "euthus"--40 times). Scholars recognize the redactional significance of this for Mark's purpose, as opposed to Jesus' purpose and this unique change in transitional pattern is rightly deemed significant in the sense that it connects the meaning of Mark 9:1 with that of 9:2. The result is that the Transfiguration is a proleptic fulfillment of the promise in 9:1, proleptic in the sense that the promise still awaits its ultimate fulfillment. Your reply ignores this distinction between immediate and ultimate fulfillment, and so, your claim that this interpretation is "silly" is thus rendered "silly."

(2) You must remember, too, that Papias, who has a direct connection with eyewitness disciples and those trained by them, reports their awareness that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome. So Mark's Gospel basically represents the transformation of Peter's teaching notes into a Gospel, not a sequentially accurate biography of Jesus' life! Peter's notes no doubt were topically arranged rather than a dry biographical lecture. Indeed, Papias reports that Mark was criticized for getting the sequence of events wrong. That criticism seems to imply the surviving disciples' awareness of the correct historical sequence of events.

Note: Seminary students joke about the coverup they must maintain with the laity to avoid the shock of scholarship on their faith. But what I'm sharing with you is standard knowledge of assumptions that must be made to get academic publications.

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

MadHermit said:

Here is your quote from post #250: "You miss the point: as I noted, Mark's superfluous use of the phrase, "And He said to them," changes the subject from the coming Son of Man to the kingdom come with power. Matthew fails to recognize the change of subject and therefore deletes this transitional phrase in copying Mark. This makes your point about the ensuing Transfiguration irrelevant." [emphasis mine]

In Post #185 of this thread I explained this. The phrase "Assuredly, I say to you", which Jesus uses 76 times in the NKJV, always ties what went before the phrase with what immediately follows it. There are no exceptions in all 76 occurrences. There is no change of subject.

Here is your quote from post #250: "(1) Outside the Passion Narrative, Mark nowhere else does Mark specify the number of days between events. He prefers the less specific word "immediately" (Greek: "euthus"--40 times). Scholars recognize the redactional significance of this for Mark's purpose, as opposed to Jesus' purpose and this unique change in transitional pattern is rightly deemed significant in the sense that it connects the meaning of Mark 9:1 with that of 9:2."

I don't really care what Q source theory says about the gospels and "modern scholarship". I'm not interested in being published in bibical journals either. I don't say this to be trite, condescending or dismissive. And I wasn't intending to use the word "silly" in that way either. If you say to 100 people that some of them will die before event A or event B; then you tell them event A is in 6 days and event B is in 40 years, which one will 100 people out of 100 think you are talking about? If they are unbiased no one will think it is 6 days.

I do not agree with their "theory" either that Mark 9: 1 is pointing to 9: 2 as at least a partial fulfillment with the phrase "6 days" instead of "immediately". I think my post #185 clearly shows their theory to be wrong. What follows the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" is always attached to what preceded it. No exceptions.

Here is your quote from post #250: "You must remember, too, that Papias, who has a direct connection with eyewitness disciples and those trained by them, reports their awareness that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome."

Papias had some weird beliefs. I forget exactly what he said but he believed in a millennial kingdom with 10,000 grapes or branches on a tree and the tree crying "eat me" or something like that. I don't remember exactly. Many of the early church fathers had unorthodox beliefs. Christians have been getting a lot of the Bible wrong for 2,000 years.

Here is your quote from post #250: "Note: Seminary students joke about the coverup they must maintain with the laity to avoid the shock of scholarship on their faith. But what I'm sharing with you is standard knowledge of assumptions that must be made to get academic publications."

Once again, I don't care about academic publications. I don't care about what other Christians think about my theological/eschatological beliefs. I still love my brothers and sisters in Christ but the only thing I care about is hearing the Lord's voice and what He is trying to say to me. I won't manipulate the Scriptures to make them say what I want.

The only eschatological timeline the Bible supports is a second coming, resurrection and judgment, and new heavens and earth that began in 70 A.D.

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

^HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Τώρα σας λέω, αληθινά υπάρχουν μερικοί από εκείνους που στέκονται εδώ που σε καμία περίπτωση δεν πρέπει να δοκιμάσουν το θάνατο μέχρι να αντιληφθούν τη βασιλεία του Θεού ».

Tóra sas léo, alithiná ypárchoun merikoí apó ekeínous pou stékontai edó pou se kamía períptosi den prépei na dokimásoun to thánato méchri na antilifthoún ti vasileía tou Theoú ».

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

delirious said:

No, the CLV is not the Greek manuscripts. It is an English translation. You need to read it in the Greek.

You chose a bad translation and try to use the phrase "under no circumstances" means that the disciples, by their behavior (that would be circumstances

), can cancel Jesus' words in Matt 16: 27-28. Your own translation says "under no circumstances" and refutes your own argument.

Now you go to another English translation, the Complete Jewish Bible, and it doesn't even have the phrase "under no circumstances" that you are claiming it has.

Here is the actual verse in Matt 16: 27 in the CJB:

Matt 16: 27, "For the Son of Man will come in his Father’s glory, with his angels; and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct."

So now you have lied about what was in the CJB. You obviously won't accept what the Scripture actually says in Matt 16: 27-28.

I don't feel like continuing to dialogue with someone who will outright lie and then misquote English versions to reject Scripture.

God bless you anyways in your search for truth.

In CJB its Matthew 16:27 vs kjv verse 28:

27 Now I am saying to you, truly there are some of those standing here who under no circumstances should be tasting death till they should be perceiving the kingdom of God."

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

That's because verse 27 in CJB is verse 28 in KJV

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

BTW, we have actual Aramaic fragments dating before 60 A.D. Papyrus, Much of the Jewish New Testament is based off of that. Even though most recordings of what Christ said are in Greek, it's a true Blessing to have Him in His native tongue speaking Aramaic!!

Locutus · Mar 17, 2019

obedienttogod said:

Try using a Greek text rather than Babelfish.

All yer doing is making yerself and yer arguments look schtoopid.

Locutus · Mar 17, 2019

obedienttogod said:

Yer not quite right in the head are ya son.

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

hahahaha

I am using a format that breaks each specific word down, not in context, but in word. Then you can compare it to your Concordance base version and see where the words deviate. God did make the claim, what appears to be foolish and simple, is what will ultimately confuse those who believe they are wise

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

compared to someone who wants to be seen as an alert mutt, I'll take my chances that my sanity is quite different than your psychological disorders

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

obedienttogod said:

You are presenting Matt 16: 28 here in the Greek with the words "under no circumstances". Do you mind telling me what manuscript this is from?

Even if this manuscript exists it still doesn't prove your point. "Under no circumstances" means that some of them will not die, no matter what, before they see the Son of Man coming with His kingdom. You are trying say that "under no circumstances" means that by their behavior they can void what Jesus said. I think it is pretty straight forward to realize that their behavior would count as circumstances. So you seem to be refuting yourself with your own argument.

Some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Pathfinder

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

obedienttogod

Guest

obedienttogod

Guest

obedienttogod

Guest

obedienttogod

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

obedienttogod

Guest

obedienttogod

Guest

Junior Member