View Full Version : What did Christ mean when He said....
In Matthew 16- 27 Jesus says that He will come in the glory of His father with His angels to recompense every man according to his deeds.
And then in Matthew 16-28 when He said "Truly, I say to you there are those among you who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
That was 2,000 years ago.
Any ideas of what He meant?
Son of Simon
12-05-2007, 09:12 AM
It all depends on the phrase, "coming into His kingdom". There are a number of ways to interpret "His kingdom".
Some say Jesus dying, being resurrected, and then ascending to Heaven is Him coming to His kingdom.
Others believe this refers to Christ's reign on Earth, and may even go so far as believe that some who have heard Him say it are still walking the Earth (my money is on Casey Casem- he'll never die!).
And then there are some who think Jesus was just wrong when he predicted it.
It's pretty clear that Jesus didn't always mean things literally (He spoke in parables a lot), so the first interpretation is the most popular (especially because it doesn't conclude with Jesus being wrong about anything).
As for me- I don't have an opinion on this one. That particular verse doesn't "mean" anything to me.
-SoS
It all depends on the phrase, "coming into His kingdom". There are a number of ways to interpret "His kingdom".
Some say Jesus dying, being resurrected, and then ascending to Heaven is Him coming to His kingdom.
Others believe this refers to Christ's reign on Earth, and may even go so far as believe that some who have heard Him say it are still walking the Earth (my money is on Casey Casem- he'll never die!).
And then there are some who think Jesus was just wrong when he predicted it.
It's pretty clear that Jesus didn't always mean things literally (He spoke in parables a lot), so the first interpretation is the most popular (especially because it doesn't conclude with Jesus being wrong about anything).
As for me- I don't have an opinion on this one. That particular verse doesn't "mean" anything to me.
-SoS
He also said in Matthew 24-34, "This generation not pass away until all these things takes place." referring to the end of the world.
So does that mean that everyone who was alive back then is still alive now?
I have a theory.
My own opinion is that the book of the Revelation was written by John (saying that John saw the second coming before he died). But I'm not too sure as there is a good deal of opinion that "John the Revelator" was not the same as "John the Apostle".
He also said in Matthew 24-34, "This generation not pass away until all these things takes place." referring to the end of the world.
So does that mean that everyone who was alive back then is still alive now?
I have a theory.
I think He was saying that "this generation" is the one which was around when the other 'signs' mentioned earlier in the chapter took place.
But eschatology isn't my strongest suit. I'd rather just be pleasantly surprised when He returns than try to guess at when it might happen. Ask Hank at equip.org as he's up on the whole 'second coming' bit. Personal opinion is that so many were wrong about His first coming that we shouldn't be shocked that a lot of people get it wrong concerning the second.
Others believe this refers to Christ's reign on Earth, and may even go so far as believe that some who have heard Him say it are still walking the Earth (my money is on Casey Casem- he'll never die!).
-SoS
I think you nailed this one SoS! Casey is probably "Simon the Zealot" still walking around..............
Son of Simon
12-05-2007, 11:51 AM
My own opinion is that the book of the Revelation was written by John (saying that John saw the second coming before he died). But I'm not too sure as there is a good deal of opinion that "John the Revelator" was not the same as "John the Apostle".
The whole origins of the Book of Revelations is a very intriguing subject. As you pointed out- it is contested whether or not the author who identifies himself as "John" may be the same as the Apostle.
The most controversial theory developed by Biblical scholars is that the book was written by an incarcerated Christian to bring hope to fellow Christian prisoners by describing an end of the world scenario. If you were alive only 100 years after Christ's death, and saw nothing in your world but Christian persecution, you might fully believe that the world was ending right then and there, and a book like this would bring you some comfort right before the Romans fed you to lions!:(
-SoS
True. But I've found that far too many people spend far too much time trying to figure out what all the symbols mean. And they do so to the point that they lose sight of the main point which is that there is always hope. Hope that is eternal, that all will be made new at some point.
And The Revelation is so foreign to us today because it's written in a literary genre that no longers exists. 'Apocoplyptics' were rather common in that era, but haven't been used in centuries. That's why it's so difficult for us to relate to a lot of the vivid symbolism (that would have been much clearer to those reading it around the time it was written).
The whole origins of the Book of Revelations is a very intriguing subject. As you pointed out- it is contested whether or not the author who identifies himself as "John" may be the same as the Apostle.
The most controversial theory developed by Biblical scholars is that the book was written by an incarcerated Christian to bring hope to fellow Christian prisoners by describing an end of the world scenario. If you were alive only 100 years after Christ's death, and saw nothing in your world but Christian persecution, you might fully believe that the world was ending right then and there, and a book like this would bring you some comfort right before the Romans fed you to lions!:(
-SoS
John was a common name and they not have last names back then.
Eventually, someone got the idea of surnames and that lessened the confusion.
I would not be too surprised to find out that John the Apostle did not write 'Revelation.'
It's difficult to say. During that period it was common to 'sign' someone else's name on a work to give it some cred (especially in an 'Apocolyptic'). There are other things the historians have to look at within the texts to determine whether or not the 'author' was who they said they were. And there are some stylistic similarities (and some differences) with some of John's earlier writings (his gospel). Maybe not so apparent once translated to english, but more syntax and sentence structure in the original Greek. So I wouldn't be surprised if we find out he did, or did not write it. But again, that doesn't take away from the central point of hope.
The most controversial theory developed by Biblical scholars is that the book was written by an incarcerated Christian to bring hope to fellow Christian prisoners by describing an end of the world scenario. If you were alive only 100 years after Christ's death, and saw nothing in your world but Christian persecution, you might fully believe that the world was ending right then and there, and a book like this would bring you some comfort right before the Romans fed you to lions!:(
-SoS
Not controversial at all. As a matter of fact, a lot of the symbolism points to Ceaser at the time. Difficult for us to tell as the symbols are kind of meaningless to us today. But again, the central point, that there is always hope, is timeless.
Son of Simon
12-05-2007, 03:48 PM
It's difficult to say. During that period it was common to 'sign' someone else's name on a work to give it some cred (especially in an 'Apocolyptic'). There are other things the historians have to look at within the texts to determine whether or not the 'author' was who they said they were. And there are some stylistic similarities (and some differences) with some of John's earlier writings (his gospel). Maybe not so apparent once translated to english, but more syntax and sentence structure in the original Greek. So I wouldn't be surprised if we find out he did, or did not write it. But again, that doesn't take away from the central point of hope.
Extremely well said. I can respect Christians who view their faith and scripture as a means of fostering hope and well being for others. It's a shame when other "Christians" use this stuff to foster their own hate and prejudices.
X1TX- I don't think it would make a difference to you if you found out the author wasn't someone you'd expect it to be. The writings inspire the same hope in you that they did nearly 2,000 years ago.
And that's what it should be about.
-SoS
Not controversial at all. As a matter of fact, a lot of the symbolism points to Ceaser at the time. Difficult for us to tell as the symbols are kind of meaningless to us today. But again, the central point, that there is always hope, is timeless.
Many christians have become obsessed with Revelation and are spending a lot of time trying to figure out when Jesus will return. I think it would better if people paid more attention to what Christ said during His lifetime, like how we to be charitible and nice to others.
sandy
12-06-2007, 05:37 AM
Being charitable and nice is fine. Most born-agains know we are in end times. If we don't get people saved and they die, then they fry. :( Our JOB as born-agains is to be "fishers of men" and get people saved/churched. NOTHING else is as important.
Many christians have become obsessed with Revelation and are spending a lot of time trying to figure out when Jesus will return. I think it would better if people paid more attention to what Christ said during His lifetime, like how we to be charitible and nice to others.
Yep. Even Jesus said that no one would know when it would happen. "When" is really none of our concern. Those who know Him know they'll see Him all in good time regardless. And that we will eventually see Him is our hope. Discussion on 'when', while it can be intellectually stimulating, is only arguing trivia (in the big picture). People who say they 'know' when the end times will happen haven't read what Jesus said about it.
Being charitable and nice is fine. Most born-agains know we are in end times. If we don't get people saved and they die, then they fry. :( Our JOB as born-agains is to be "fishers of men" and get people saved/churched. NOTHING else is as important.
People should be also be taught how Christ wants us to be kind to others.
I think He was saying that "this generation" is the one which was around when the other 'signs' mentioned earlier in the chapter took place.
But eschatology isn't my strongest suit. I'd rather just be pleasantly surprised when He returns than try to guess at when it might happen. Ask Hank at equip.org as he's up on the whole 'second coming' bit. Personal opinion is that so many were wrong about His first coming that we shouldn't be shocked that a lot of people get it wrong concerning the second.
hank is way off base when it comes to revelation. He says that the whore of bablyon is Israel.
here is the description of the whore of babylon..... seven mountains where the woman sits......and the woman you saw is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.... this is not the description of Israel, but of something else...
hank is way off base when it comes to revelation. He says that the whore of bablyon is Israel.
here is the description of the whore of babylon..... seven mountains where the woman sits......and the woman you saw is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.... this is not the description of Israel, but of something else...
Jerusalem is a pretty hilly area. But I don't think that's what he is talking about. Besides, I believe the hills (just like the 'whore') are symbols.
And yes, I don't agree with Hank on everything. I suspect the 'whore of Babylon' will likely be some institution of man. Either a government or 'religion'. But, like I said, we'll all know in good time.
Son of Simon
12-06-2007, 02:37 PM
I suspect the 'whore of Babylon' will likely be some institution of man. Either a government or 'religion'.
I would have to say the two great 'religions' of the world today are media and consumerism. Perhaps the 'whore' represents one of them.
I mean...we may not agree on God, but I bet we're more likely to agree on how awesome Krispy Kremes taste, or that we all love watching American Idol.
We may not all believe that December 25th is the Son of God's birthday- but that won't keep us from buying all the cool gifts for our loved ones.
And we may not agree with the foreign policy of any given country in the world- but when we travel there we sure are relieved to find a Wal Mart or McDonald's.
So it may not be a government in a religion in a traditional sense...but you gotta admit media and consumerism are the biggest factors in the world today.
-SoS
I would have to say the two great 'religions' of the world today are media and consumerism. Perhaps the 'whore' represents one of them.
I mean...we may not agree on God, but I bet we're more likely to agree on how awesome Krispy Kremes taste, or that we all love watching American Idol.
We may not all believe that December 25th is the Son of God's birthday- but that won't keep us from buying all the cool gifts for our loved ones.
And we may not agree with the foreign policy of any given country in the world- but when we travel there we sure are relieved to find a Wal Mart or McDonald's.
So it may not be a government in a religion in a traditional sense...but you gotta admit media and consumerism are the biggest factors in the world today.
-SoS
I think I will have a krispy kreme while I try to figure out what Christ meant in Matthew 24-34. I think I have it figured out but that would revolutionize the whole present way of christian thinking.
I will leave revelation to those who want to read it.
Son of Simon
12-06-2007, 04:16 PM
I think I will have a krispy kreme while I try to figure out what Christ meant in Matthew 24-34. I think I have it figured out but that would revolutionize the whole present way of christian thinking.
Sounds intriguing. I'd be very interested in hearing your theory.
-SoS
I think I will have a krispy kreme while I try to figure out what Christ meant in Matthew 24-34. I think I have it figured out but that would revolutionize the whole present way of christian thinking.
I will leave revelation to those who want to read it.
I think He's saying that the generation that sees the things mentioned earlier in the chapter (the 'trials and tribulations') won't pass away until the end.
Unless of course they all chow down on Krispy Kremes and die of clogged arteries....... :D
Son of Simon
12-07-2007, 10:26 AM
The inventor of Krispy Kremes is the antichrist. That person could rule the whole word with the glazed goodness.
Man I love Krispy Kremes...
-SoS
Feisty Kitty
12-07-2007, 10:27 AM
The inventor of Krispy Kremes is the antichrist. That person could rule the whole word with the glazed goodness.
Man I love Krispy Kremes...
-SoS
I know what I am picking up for you after work!
I think He's saying that the generation that sees the things mentioned earlier in the chapter (the 'trials and tribulations') won't pass away until the end.
Unless of course they all chow down on Krispy Kremes and die of clogged arteries....... :D
while I have another krispy creme along with a chocolate shake, I think I will also read Matthew 20 1-16, because that actually shows additional information on Matthew 24 34.
Feisty Kitty
12-07-2007, 11:24 AM
Great Caesar's Ghost! Krispy Kremes AND a chocolate shake! Holy bejebes, that sounds delicious!
(sadly laments that she will probably never eat either again, but will watch significant other enjoy both)
Why can't fat be hot? If fat were hot, I would rock some chubby hottness! Instead I have to deny myself the ambrosia of the gods that is the Krispy Kreme!
UUMMMMMMMMMMM, Donuts!
kelly
12-09-2007, 03:57 PM
Extremely well said. I can respect Christians who view their faith and scripture as a means of fostering hope and well being for others. It's a shame when other "Christians" use this stuff to foster their own hate and prejudices.
-SoS
Precisely how a lot of atheists believe, as long it's 'passive".
TaylorHicksRocks
12-09-2007, 06:42 PM
Precisely how a lot of atheists believe, as long it's 'passive".
I don't think you are correct at all......
:p:p:p:p