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

Locutus · Mar 17, 2019

I can see that you are foolish when claiming the verse from A.E Knoch's translation according to Luke's gospel is from the CJB

Luke 9:27 (CLV) 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."

https://www.concordant.org/version/read-concordant-new-testament-online/03-luke/

Just give it up with the trolling.

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

delirious said:

But being that 1600's, the kjv probably should had been translated as "under no circumstances. The term circumstances always comes with an attachment. You can cross your toes all you like, but using proper word choice puts things into correct perspective.

In 68-70 A.D., Josephus writes nothing concerning the 2 Witnesses. John wrote specifically the 2 Witnesses would be present from day 1 to mid-point before being murdered, rose back alive, and then taken up by God. How did Josephus miss this if 70 A.D. was when Yeshua returned?

And what kind of FLAWED judgement believes God waits 4,000 years to reveal His Messiah, and within 30 years after the ascension God performs the End of the World, and another 2,000 years afterwards.

Your theory is so flawed, bubble gum has a better chance at plugging those holes

obedienttogod · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

The Jewish Bible states same thing. So, I could be using either one. I trust the Jewish version more, because it's based off the Aramaic copy of the Gospels. This gives us a better view from Yeshua, since He spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

lightbearer · Mar 17, 2019

Ahwatukee said:

What if you ALL are wrong in your interpretation?

lightbearer · Mar 17, 2019

Locutus said:

I don't know Knoch from Scotch. But as far as "under no circumstances" not being supported by the Greek? It Sure it is. There is a double negative just prior to what you highlighted in your own post.

Locutus said:

lightbearer · Mar 17, 2019

And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
(Luk 8:52 KJV)

Ahwatukee · Mar 17, 2019

lightbearer said:

It's pretty hard to be wrong, when the scripture gives a detailed account of how the resurrection of the dead and the living will be caught up.

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. "

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

* Jesus descends from heaven with the trumpet call of God

* The dead in Christ rise first

* After the dead rise, the living are changed and caught up with the resurrected to meet the Lord in the air

Absolutely · Mar 17, 2019

delirious said:

All the verses posted by cv said "perceiving" . NOT actually coming,but " seeing" which they did when he ascended to his kingdom ,heaven.
He's there now. In his kingdom. He came into His kingdom and they saw it before they tasted death.
They DID NOT see him come to earth and set up his kingdom.
That would make the gt,the ac,and satan all past and trivial entities.
It also would make rev 14 as well as the 2 witnesses history,since they are gt players.
Another wrinkle would be the white horses. They are not of this planet. They do not breathe air,as they come from heaven.
So where are millions of non air breathing horses ,(eternal creatures) located today????
Ooooops

MadHermit · Mar 17, 2019

Delirious: "Every time the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" is used by Jesus it always links what was said before with what follows."
Your argument here can be summarily dismissed on 3 grounds:
(1) The point of this expression is to solemnize what follows like the expression, "But I say to you" in Luke 6:27. But 6:27 changes the subject from the 2 woes to nonretaliation and the need to love our enemies. saying located in a different context in Matthew.

(2) In John 1:51 "very truly I tell you" introduces a new subject in an originally detached saying:
In his magisterial mammoth 2-volune commentary on John, Raymond Brown supports this claim, offering these 4 grounds:
(a) "John 1:51 has not always been associated with the context in which it is found...There is nothing in what follows to indicate that 1:51 was ever fulfilled. " Nathanael shows up again only once, for a resurrection appearance that would satisfy "the greater things," but does not fulfill 1:51.
(b) ""Jesus has been talking to Nathanael in 1:51. Why do we get a new rubric, "And He (Jesus) told him (Nathanael)?"
"The "you" in 1:51 is (inexplicably) plural;" the context does not clearly identify the others originally addressed.
(c) "Parallels in Matthew (16:27-28; 26:64) provide us with an objective basis for suspecting that a primitive saying concerning a future coming of the Son of Man (John 1:51)... was once found in another sequence in which it now stands." (d) "The Cana story would be a good sequel to 1:50" (not 1:51).

(3) before we have Gospels, we have separate collections of sayings, miracle stories, an controversy stories. Prior to that, we have oral tradition which relied on memory of individual sayings, not on whole speeches as originally delivered.

In any case, the change in subject from Mark 8:38 to 9:1 stands. The phrase "And he said to them" changes the subject from the coming Son of Man to the impending witness of some bystanders to the kingdom come with power. Mark's unprecedented transition phrase "After 6 days" implies that the Transfiguration is a proleptic fulfillment. But proleptic to what?

"I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people, but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk, but on power (1 Corinthians 5;19-20)."

"The kingdom come with power" in Mark 9:1 finds its ultimate fulfillment in the dynamic operation of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts in the early church, beginning with the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

Your counter-claim about the Q original of Matthew 10:23 vin Luke 10:1 will be refuted in another post.

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

MadHermit said:

As I said before, "Assuredly, I say to you" is used 76 times in the NKJV. Only Jesus uses it. It always links what was said before the phrase with what follows it. It's always the same subject/context/event. It never changes topics in all 76 occurrences. No exceptions. Don't take my word for it, research it yourself and you will see that I am telling you the truth. Luke 6: 27 is not one of those 76 occurrences. He doesn't change topic there anyways and I'm not sure why you think He does.

MadHermit said:

John 1: 50 and 1: 51 read like this: 50 "Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

So Jesus says right before the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" that Nathaniel "will see greater things than these" and then what follows immediately after the phrase Jesus says Nathaniel will see "angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man". It is clear it is the same context/topic.

MadHermit said:

You are basing your decision based on the phrase in Mark 9: 1 "And he said to them" along with a chapter division that was put in by men more than 1,000 years after the manuscript was written. You are also basing your decision on "scholarly" opinions from Q source theory. None of these are good ideas.

The phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" already proves that reasoning to be false so I will not go over it again. Using Scripture alone, and the phrase that Jesus, in His divine providence gave us, we can see that Mark 8: 38 and 9: 1 are the same event/topic. Same thing with Matt 16: 27-28 and Luke 9: 26-27. No chapter breaks in those two examples.

The message in those 3 passages is the same. Many Christians won't accept it though.

lightbearer · Mar 17, 2019

Ahwatukee said:

Wouldn't argue any of that. I liked Luke also...
And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
(Luk 8:52 KJV)

What does that have to do with it? First Jesus says...

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Then he continues in the same context by the use of the Greek word δέ (de).

No matter how we spin it. Whether one interprets de as a continuative or as a adversative; what follows that word is connected to what is before not after.

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
(Luk 9:23-27 KJV)

Which death? The one in which Jesus in 8:52 refers to as a sleep? Or the Second to which there is no waking?

The second my friend. The one in which there is no waking.

These words in verse 27 are not being spoken in a positive manner they are being spoken in judgement. Remember He just got done saying, "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."

The verse in question is connected to the Son of man being ashamed. Not the Transfiguration or Pentecost.

MadHermit · Mar 17, 2019

delirious: "It ("Assuredly I say to you") always links what was said before the phrase with what follows it. It's always the same subject/context/event."

I just refuted your claim: the topic DOES shift in Mark 9:1 from the coming Son of Man to the Kingdom come with power and I drew your attention to 1 Corinthians 4:20-21, which explains what is meant by the link between "kingdom" and "power." This link refers to the operation of the Spirit in the life of the church!

delirious: "Luke 6: 27 is not one of those 76 occurrences. He doesn't change topic there anyways and I'm not sure why you think He does."
I just explained to you how 6:27 changes topics. Reread my post.

John 1: 50 and 1: 51 read like this: 50 "Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

delirious: "So Jesus says right before the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" (1:51) that Nathaniel "will see greater things than these (1:50)" and then what follows immediately after the phrase Jesus says Nathaniel will see "angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man". It is clear it is the same context/topic."

On the contrary, as I pointed out to you, Nathanael never gets to see "angels descending and ascending upon the Son of Man." Nathanael appears again on once (21:1-2) in an incident where the "greater things" he says involve Jesus cooking breakfast along the shore, but no angels. So Brown's 4 reasons hold up well for insisting that the saying in 1:51 has a prior history of independent circulation and an original reference that does not involve Nathanael.

delirious: "You are basing your decision based on the phrase in Mark 9: 1 "And he said to them" along with a chapter division that was put in by men more than 1,000 years after the manuscript was written."

Nonsense! The verse break-down is irrelevant. But you use the NKJV whose corrupt text has been discredited by modern text critics, both conservative and liberal. You really do need to read a scholarly book on Text Criticism.

delirious: "You are also basing your decision on "scholarly" opinions from Q source theory. None of these are good ideas."
Once Marcan priority has been established, the Q hypothesis is easy to demonstrate and thus is foundational for Synoptic Gospel scholarship. You really need to read a good academic NT Introduction like Raymond Brown's or Werner Kummel's to educate yourself on the many reasons why.

garee · Mar 17, 2019

Ahwatukee said:

After the dead rise. One work of God all in the twinkling of an eye, in the last day both will be changed (we)

1 Corinthians 15:52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

MadHermit said:

No, you didn't. Jesus uses the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" 76 times in the NKJV. It always links what precedes it with what follows it. No exceptions.

MadHermit said:

It doesn't matter whether we know if Nathanael saw it or not. Jesus said he would see it and Jesus doesn't lie. You can complain that there is no record of it but that has no bearing whatsoever. Jesus said he would, therefore I know he did. The point is the text is one subject/event before and after the phrase.

MadHermit said:

Now you want to claim the NKJV is corrupt.

So apparently you are a Critical Text advocate. Fair enough. The NASB will tell you the same thing. The phrase "Truly, I say to you" is used 77 times in the NASB. Same result. All 77 times it links what was said before with what follows the phrase. No exceptions.

You are too busy elevating Q source theory and "scholarship" above the Word of God. Jesus tells us from His own lips that the verses are linked together and are the same event. I will go with Him.

Ahwatukee · Mar 17, 2019

lightbearer said:

That is the worst interpretation I've ever heard! According to the context, the reference is clearly referring to the death of the body, "those standing here will not taste of death," the death of the body. To try and make that refer to the second death is by complete conjecture without any basis at all.

My original post was a teaching, not a debate. I posted it as a teaching to reveal the meaning behind this scripture, because people continued to use it to infer that those people standing there would see the kingdom of God, i.e. the Lord's return to the earth to end the age, before they had died in their physical body.

My point was/is that, the scripture has nothing to do with those standing there seeing Jesus return to end the age. But as a prophesy of those standing there (Peter, John and James) getting a preview of Jesus in His glorified state, i.e. the Son of Man coming in His glory. The prophesy was fulfilled when Peter, John and James (those standing there) saw Jesus in His glorified state and that before they died.

I'm so tired of people tweaking the scriptures to make if fit their interpretations! However, that is exactly what scripture says would happen:

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

MadHermit · Mar 17, 2019

I repeat: as Paul explains in 1 Cor. 4:19-20, "the kingdom of God come with power" refers to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, not to the 2nd coming of the Son of Man as your refuted interpretation suggests--and you have no answer to this point;

delirious: "It doesn't matter whether we know if Nathanael saw it or not. Jesus said he would see it and Jesus doesn't lie."

As usual, you miss the point: the saying in 1:51 did not originally apply to Nathaniel in its original application. Raymond Brown supplies several reasons for this which express the scholarly consensus and which you have not addressed.

delirious: "You are too busy elevating Q source theory and "scholarship" above the Word of God. Jesus tells us from His own lips that the verses are linked together and are the same event."

I have carefully explained to you that this is false and you have no answer. And you dismiss Q with no research or awareness of the solid grounds on which its role is based. Papias conversed with 2 of Jesus' disciples who told him that Matthew compiled "the sayings (Greek: "logia") of Jesus in Hebrew and each translated this as best they could."Papias likely refers to the saying collection known as Q. Before there were Gospels, there were oral traditions, saying collections, miracle story collections, etc. ! represents the version of the sayings collection that was circulated east of the Jordan; the Gospel of Thomas represents the version of the sayings collection that was circulated east of the Jordan.
Once Marcan priority is established, it becomes clear that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q, the source of the large sayings collection used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark and John. Sometimes Matthew uses the more original wording of Q and sometimes Luke does. To get published, scholarly artices on Matthew and Luke must assume dependence on Mark. As I said, you need to read a good academic NT Introduction for a survey on all the other reasons why.

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

Ahwatukee said:

It was a bad teaching. I am not saying that to try and insult you but to just state it for what it is.

I refuted your claim a long time ago in this thread that those verses are referring to the Transfiguration or Pentecost. Every man was not rewarded according to their deeds and Jesus was not ashamed of anybody at the Transfiguration or Pentecost. You have no answer for this because the Scripture does not support your claim.

Your claim that Matthew 16: 27 and Matthew 16: 28 are two different events I also refuted. Jesus uses the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" 76 times in the NKJV. It always links what was before the phrase with what immediately follows it. No exceptions. Same context/subject/event/topic every single time. This proves, from Jesus' own lips, that your claim of two different events is false.

Ahwatukee said:

I've heard you say this over and over in your posts. The statement is rich with irony. I mean this with all due respect, but you need to look in the mirror. The only thing I've done in Matt 16: 27-28, Mark 8: 38-9:1 and Luke 9: 26-27 is read the text and accept it for what it says. Exegesis. You have tried repeatedly to manipulate it and get around it because it proves your eschatology false.

delirious · Mar 17, 2019

MadHermit said:

I refuted you with Jesus' own phrase multiple times. He placed the phrase "Assuredly, I say to you" by His own divine providence to protect against people like you who will distort the Word of God on this topic. Your claim of separate events is denied by Jesus. You won't accept what the Scripture says in Matt 16: 27-28, Mark 8: 38-9:1 and Luke 9: 26-27. That is the bottom line.

Nevertheless, I wish you well in your studies. It is pointless to keep talking with you. We can agree to disagree.

God bless you in your search for truth.

garee · Mar 17, 2019

Context is "this generation" as the "generation of Christ" the generation that will not die the second death. Not the generation of Adam as in all die the second death. This generation is the generation of us that will rise up in the judgment with the queen of the south, and shall condemn the generation of Adam

Matthew 12:42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

If it ended with the generation of Adam as in all die. Then the queen of the south has received her promised new incorruptible body, the end of the world has come.

Your original post was private interpretation or personal commentary written well. . , not the law of God as His interpretation. Every man and woman has one.

Locutus · Mar 17, 2019

"this generation shall not" means the generation that was contemporary to Jesus.

Matt 1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Attempting to use "generation" rather then genealogy in the above is incorrect.

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

Senior Member

obedienttogod

Guest

obedienttogod

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Banned

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Banned

Senior Member