Christian Forums

! No longer available

! No longer available

! No longer available

! No longer available

In the beginning of the second video he brings up Matthew 16 and those who would not taste death until they saw the Lord coming in his kingdom. I know most Preterists would say that this is one evidence that Jesus had to come before those men passed away. I disagree on this verse, I cannot find a good argument against this being fulfilled in the following verses (when Peter and the others saw Jesus transfigured). The reason this seems to be clear is found in these words of Peter:

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

But I do agree with Preston, that God did come before, not visibly, but in judgment to shake the earth (but not literally) and make the nations know of his greatness.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Sep 23, 2015 - 15:51:49
In the beginning of the second video he brings up Matthew 16 and those who would not taste death until they saw the Lord coming in his kingdom. I know most Preterists would say that this is one evidence that Jesus had to come before those men passed away. I disagree on this verse, I cannot find a good argument against this being fulfilled in the following verses (when Peter and the others saw Jesus transfigured). The reason this seems to be clear is found in these words of Peter:

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

But I do agree with Preston, that God did come before, not visibly, but in judgment to shake the earth (but not literally) and make the nations know of his greatness.

Are you saying you believe the transfiguration is the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27-28?

But this verse is speaking about Christ's second coming, coming in judgment (Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26).

There was no judgment passed in the transfiguration and Christ was not yet glorified (John 7:39) neither had Christ received His Kingdom yet (Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14).

Well, Peter says they were eyewitnesses of his majesty, when he received from God the Father honor and glory. What do you make of the verse saying, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"? What "coming" is he referring to but that of glory and majesty as they saw him transfigured before them?

I believe we need to separate vs 27 and 28 of Matt 16. Verse 27 refers to the coming in judgment, 28 is alluding to the very thing Peter and the others witnessed on the mount. JMO

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Thu Sep 24, 2015 - 04:18:45
Well, Peter says they were eyewitnesses of his majesty, when he received from God the Father honor and glory. What do you make of the verse saying, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"? What "coming" is he referring to but that of glory and majesty as they saw him transfigured before them?

I believe we need to separate vs 27 and 28 of Matt 16. Verse 27 refers to the coming in judgment, 28 is alluding to the very thing Peter and the others witnessed on the mount. JMO

These verses are inseparable.

1. Christ will return in the Glory of His Father.

2. Christ will reward all according to their works

3. Christ will be coming in His Kingdom

None of these three things were fulfilled at the Transfiguration.

Christ did not return in the Glory of His Father and reward all according to their works (John 5:19,22,27; Dan. 12:2,6-7; John 5:28-29)

Christ had not ascended into heaven and received His Kingdom on the mount neither did He return in His Kingdom (Dan. 2:44-45; Dan. 7:13-14)

God would raise an everlasting Kingdom during the reign of the kings of the Four Beasts of Daniel (namely the fourth beast, Rome). This happened in A.D. 30-33.

The Son of Man would ascend up into Heaven to be presented to the Ancient of Days and would receive an everlasting Kingdom.  This happened in A.D. 30-33.

1. Christ will return in the Glory of His Father.

2. Christ will reward all according to their works

3. Christ will be coming in His Kingdom

None of these three things were fulfilled at the Transfiguration.



I agree, except for #3. Vs 28 could still be talking about the transfiguration. If it isn't, what "coming" (in power and majesty) was Peter eyewitness to?

The Day of Pentecost seems like a candidate.

Jarrod

I cannot see how it could be referring to the Day of Pentecost because Peter says they witnessed this event when they were "with him in the holy mount"... i.e. the mount of transfiguration.

It is neither the Transfiguration nor the Day of Pentecost! It is Christ coming in Judgment in A.D. 70.

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. 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. Matthew 16:27-28

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Revelation 22:12

There was no parousia judgment at the Transfiguration, in fact, Christ hadn't received His everlasting Kingdom yet (Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14).

And there was no parousia judgment on the Day of Pentecost either. 

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 - 22:17:11
I cannot see how it could be referring to the Day of Pentecost because Peter says they witnessed this event when they were "with him in the holy mount"... i.e. the mount of transfiguration.

I went back and read the passages again.  I agree that 2Peter is talking about the Transfiguration.

But why do you link that to Matthew 16?

Jarrod

I link that to Matthew 16:28 for two reasons. One, because Peter calls it "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and two, because the very next event after Jesus told them that some of them would see him "coming" in his kingdom was the transfiguration. I believe that he was alluding to this event in vs 28, not the future coming in judgment (whether it be, in our minds, ad70 or a date beyond).

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Mon Sep 28, 2015 - 14:31:49
I link that to Matthew 16:28 for two reasons. One, because Peter calls it "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and two, because the very next event after Jesus told them that some of them would see him "coming" in his kingdom was the transfiguration. I believe that he was alluding to this event in vs 28, not the future coming in judgment (whether it be, in our minds, ad70 or a date beyond).

Past tense - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Future tense - when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:16-18

Thank you, WWE. I went back and read 2 Peter chapter 1, 2 and 3. Now I think I see what you're saying. The power and coming was yet future when Peter was writing, substantiated by the fact that they had previously witnessed his majesty (and the Father's voice from heaven) when they were with him in the holy mount. (Plus, they had the more sure word of prophecy, as he said.)

I wasn't sure about this as I have never read it that way before.. but then when I read the next two chapters I could see that the power and coming he was referring to could easily be that day of judgment, the same coming that the scoffers were denying in chapter 3. Am I correct?