All Tribes Of Israel WAKE UP in the name of Jesus Christ!!!!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Jesus did not say "My kingdom will come before some of you taste death."

maybe im missing something here...

1.Matthew 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

2.Mark 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.

3.Luke 9:27
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.

reply to post by Akragon


Yes, you missed where I pointed out that John did see it. He wrote about it in Revelation 19. He judges all the nations and then ruled the world with a rod of iron.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Oh now you're just talking in circles. You didn't answer any question. And, your reply was refuted.

I'm not the person who chose to be rude instead of clarifying a question.

What question?

Here's what I said.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by 2WitnessesArrived
Start spreading the gospel, for I promise this generation will not pass away until all things are fulfilled,

Hmm, Where have I heard that before? Oh Yeah!

Matthew 16
27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

And my point has been challenged, but the argument still has not been broken. John did see Christ coming with His kingdom, it happened via vision while on Patmos.

First of all, yes your argument is broken, and silly to boot!. A claim of one man's vision is not the fulfillment of the promise that Jesus made.

Secondly, The Gospel of John and Revelations are NOT written by the same person. The Apostle John never wrote the book of Revelations. John of Patmos and The Apostle John are two different people. if either one even really existed.

Eight reasons against John the apostle as the author of Revelation

Thirdly, the purpose of my comment was not not to elicit an explanation from you. It was to point out the OP's old and tired street corner pleas for repentance, because "the end is near" (still/again) is older that Jesus and his teachings.

Jesus did not say "My kingdom will come before some of you taste death."

So what did he say? "You'll all have visions, and see me and my kingdom flying around in the sky, on your death beds"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Revelation 21 says otherwise.

Revelation 21
1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

According to John, this Earth will pass away and a new one will take its place (*cough* reincarnation *cough*).

If Earth passes away at his second coming, no one on this Earth would see his coming because they also would have passed away, so again what Jesus said does not apply to John's vision in any way.

My interpretation on what Jesus said is that death cannot be experienced because you cannot be aware of being unconscious. Those who realize that death is only an illusion and not real do not "taste" (experience) death before they are born again.

30 years could go by while you are in a coma and you'd think it was the blink of an eye. The same applies to death. You do not experience death, only life, and those who know they will "resurrect" after death do not taste death before being born again through reincarnation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . you missed where I pointed out that John did see it. He wrote about it in Revelation 19. He judges all the nations and then ruled the world with a rod of iron.

Rev. 19 talks about a rider on a white horse "called Faithful and True" who's name is "the Word of God".

If you say that this means that it is Jesus, then it is a circular argument because this is where people get the idea that Jesus is "the word of God".
I would say that it is the word of God personified in this highly symbolic scenario demonstrating in a story how faith and truth ultimately prevails over deception, personified here as the beast.

reply to post by jmdewey60


In my mind, that shows that most Christians believe a book is god. If the "word of god" is Jesus, then Jesus is the bible, a book. Talk about idolatry.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

According to John, this Earth will pass away and a new one will take its place . . .

The world as we knew it passed away, replaced by a city with no temple, where God lives among men, which is what we had after Revelation was written
Old style Jewish religion of the temple in Jerusalem was replaced by the religion of Christ, where God dwells spiritually in our hearts.
Sometime after Revelation was written, Jerusalem was destroyed with its temple, and along with it the religion based on those material things.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

In my mind, that shows that most Christians believe a book is god. If the "word of god" is Jesus, then Jesus is the bible, a book. Talk about idolatry.

I don't think that Jesus is the word of God.
That comes from John 1 being deliberately mistranslated in order to support the Trinity doctrine, by having it say "The Word became flesh" and then saying "the flesh" was Jesus. A more normal translation would be to take into consideration the other part of the clause that snippet was taken from, to have it say, "And the word for mankind took up its dwelling in us".

reply to post by jmdewey60


Revelation was written over 20 years after Jerusalem was destroyed though. The siege of Jerusalem happened in 70 CE while Revelation wasn't written until 95 or 96 CE.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Jesus did not say "My kingdom will come before some of you taste death."

maybe im missing something here...

1.Matthew 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

2.Mark 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.

3.Luke 9:27
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.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

But does that not point towards a soul going home and experiencing the fruits of god before the body has died? That dos not mean the kingdom of God will be realised by those around those people.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . you missed where I pointed out that John did see it. He wrote about it in Revelation 19. He judges all the nations and then ruled the world with a rod of iron.

Rev. 19 talks about a rider on a white horse "called Faithful and True" who's name is "the Word of God".

If you say that this means that it is Jesus, then it is a circular argument because this is where people get the idea that Jesus is "the word of God".
I would say that it is the word of God personified in this highly symbolic scenario demonstrating in a story how faith and truth ultimately prevails over deception, personified here as the beast.

edit on 17-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I don't see how on Earth you can say it's anyone other than Jesus considering verse 16.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Revelation was written over 20 years after Jerusalem was destroyed though. The siege of Jerusalem happened in 70 CE while Revelation wasn't written until 95 or 96 CE.

The premise of the inclusion of certain books into the New Testament is that these were written by the Apostles who were given a special spirit by Christ.
For example, the Book of Jude was assumed to have been written by the disciple of Jesus named Jude.
You find the application of an allowed exception with Luke and Acts where it is assumed that he is the same Luke as was mentioned in a letter of Paul, as if there was a sort of apostolic virtue that rubbed off since Paul considered his closest associates as apostles too.
With Revelation, inclusion of it in the NT relies on its being written by John the son of Zebedee, who was one of Jesus' 12 disciples. This is supported by Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.
Tradition says that John the Apostle was martyred before 70 AD.
So either it was written at an early date, or it is not rightly included in the NT canon.
The late date has currently no acceptable support in biblical scholarship.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I don't see how on Earth you can say it's anyone other than Jesus considering verse 16.

Your problem (as I have suggested in other threads) is you inability to understand how metaphor works.
You have a symbolic figure that represents certain personified spiritual forces, and not an individual person.
This is another opportunity for circular argument where "king of kings lord of lords" is considered by many people to be Jesus, based on a phrase being used without a direct reference to the name Jesus.
According to 1 Timothy 6:15, the term is a reference to God.
So the name written somewhere on the body of "the rider" in Rev. 19 is the authority by which it acts.
You see a variant form of the term being used in Revelation 17:14, but you have to look at the part that says "and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers" to see how it is being used. The Lamb prevails because they are the chosen, not because they are God, but because the Lord rules over the kings.

reply to post by jmdewey60

With Revelation, inclusion of it in the NT relies on its being written by John the son of Zebedee, who was one of Jesus' 12 disciples. This is supported by Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. Tradition says that John the Apostle was martyred before 70 AD. So either it was written at an early date, or it is not rightly included in the NT canon. The late date has currently no acceptable support in biblical scholarship.

I have to, respectfully, disagree with you JmDewey.

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong. www.christiancourier.com...

Irenaeus Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Titus Flavius Domitianus, commonly known as Domitian, was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96.

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said, In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

If John the Apostle was martyred around 70 AD, then he couldn't be the one who saw the visions and wrote the book of Revelation.

Since Domitian died in A.D. 96, the date attributed to the book of Revelation coincides with this date. Some bible commentators attribute Revelation date prior to A.D. 70. The main proponents of an early date, interpret Revelation as historical book written symbolically with events having past (Preterist). The early date view is argued largely from a quote attributed to Papius that John the Apostle was martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
www.truthnet.org...

reply to post by windword

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96.

OK . . by what tradition?
One that began 200 years ago by proponents of the Futurist interpretation of Revelation?
I would not call that "traditional", but a self-serving biased opinion fabricated to support their own theory.
The actual tradition, that dates back to the first century says that John was martyred before the fall of Jerusalem.

reply to post by colbe

Get ready, it is "soon" says Heaven.

It's been "soon" since forever. Still ain't happened. What makes you think, dearest colbe, that YOU are privileged enough (and holy enough) to be a member of the few generations (3, perhaps, if it happened today - maybe 4 at most) of the 80 generations since Jesus lived? And since there are generally 3 or 4 generations alive at any moment, let's say, 300ish generations.

"Heaven" isn't saying much of anything except


AND....the ENTIRE world population in 1 AD was FEWER than the population of the United States NOW.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The actual tradition, that dates back to the first century says that John was martyred before the fall of Jerusalem.

If that's the case, then the book of Revelation wasn't authored by John the Apostle and John of Patmos is a different individual. Revelations is dated during the reign of Domitian, after the fall of Jerusalem.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I would not call that "traditional", but a self-serving biased opinion fabricated to support their own theory.

Seems like you are the one who is doing this, not anyone else. Google when John died and 99% of the links will say at the end of the first century.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Where do you get that? I can't find any information on that. When I Google "the martyrdom of the Apostle John" what comes back from numerous sources is that John was the only apostle who was not martyred, but died of old age. Both secular and Christian sources say the same thing.

reply to post by windword

If that's the case, then the book of Revelation wasn't authored by John the Apostle and John of Patmos is a different individual.

If that is true, then everyone should just ignore it as a book that was slipped into the canon by Athanasius after it had already been discredited by Dionysius of Alexandria.
Meaning that every time someone mentions Revelation, your reaction should be, "That is a fake book and is not authoritative by the canon principle of authenticity, and I will not accept any quotes from it as an argument in Christian theological discussions."

Revelations is dated during the reign of Domitian, after the fall of Jerusalem.

If you look at the book, Irenaeus Against Heresies, where he mentions Domitian is in what is basically a commentary on Revelation where he is discussing the various Roman Emperors, as to how they figure into cryptic remarks in Revelation such as the number of the beast.
Against Heresies
He seems to be engaged in arguments about whether to determine the number from the Greek letters or from the Latin letters, where he seems to favor the latter seeing how the current rulers are "Latini".
Irenaeus is asking if we should go ahead now and say who is the antichrist named in Revelation.
Then he says that if we should do that, then it probably should say so in the book, "by him who also saw the Apocalypse. For at no long time ago was it seen, but almost our generation, in the end of Domitian's reign."
There is nothing in there about when anything was written.
Irenaeus is saying that the writer of the book "saw" the Apocalypse. Then Irenaeus says that "it" was seen no long time ago.
OK, so what is "it", and what was the "Apocalypse" that the writer of the book (Revelation) saw.
The first entry at Free Dictionary gives three definitions for apocalypse:
1. Revelation or other apocalyptic books.
2. devastation, doom.
3. prophetic disclosure.

I don't know how early the word apocalypse became used to describe bad things in a biblical sense happening , but if he meant it in the sense as def. 2, then what Irenaeus would have been saying is that the action of the antichrist was already being seen coming true in a historical sense.