Many failed predictions of Jesus return..

[Elijah John]

Matthew 16:27-28 New International Version (NIV)

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

There have been many failed predictions of the "2nd coming of Christ". Most notably, Charles Taze Russell who predicted Jesus would return in 1914. When he didn't return, the prediction was revised to mean an "invisible return".

For debate, in light of the quoted passage from Matthew, was Jesus the first person to mistakenly predict his return?

How is Jesus prediction different from any of the others who have mistakenly predicted the time of his return?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 175 by Elijah John]

Tart wrote

How sure are we that this passage refers to Jesus return, and not His Transfiguration on the Mount? After all, it was in the very next chapter...

You replied

Good question. Because there were no angels or judgment (rewards and punishiments) in the Transfirguration. But those were things that Jesus alluded to in verse 27, linked to verse 28.

This is really the key point at issue, on this thread.

That is, which verses are linked to which verses, and whether or not verse 27 is linked to verse 28.

From a literary standpoint, they are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same topic.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 167 by Elijah John]

No prophecy has a date? Perhaps, not an exact one. But the time span, the date range given in Matthew 16.27-28 is quite specific. Within the lifetime of Jesus contemporaries. "Some standing here", in Jesus's day, not ours. Not the present readership.

Moving the goalposts.

Verse 28 is quite specific, yes, but what it refers to is an event about to happen to "some standing here"

That event is not the return with angels in judgment, but is described in the subsequent verses.

This claim of yours is absolutely contrary to what the verses say.
27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

After "some standing here will not taste death" comes "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. What "subsequent verses" are you talking about? Verse 28 ends the chapter and the next chapter is about the transfiguration and says nothing about Jesus "coming in his kingdom."

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 175 by Elijah John]

Tart wrote

How sure are we that this passage refers to Jesus return, and not His Transfiguration on the Mount? After all, it was in the very next chapter...

You replied

Good question. Because there were no angels or judgment (rewards and punishiments) in the Transfirguration. But those were things that Jesus alluded to in verse 27, linked to verse 28.

This is really the key point at issue, on this thread.

That is, which verses are linked to which verses, and whether or not verse 27 is linked to verse 28.

From a literary standpoint, they are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same topic.

That literary standpoint does little or nothing, or is negative, as to being any assistance in deciding the issue.

Paragraphs, chapters, verses, and speech marks, are all later additions to scripture made by men to help us navigate; they are thus not scripture itself.

They do not decide for us where a topic begins or ends.

Instead, we do that, however well or badly.

Context is the vital key.

[Danmark]

Paragraphs, chapters, verses, and speech marks, are all later additions to scripture made by men to help us navigate; they are thus not scripture itself.

They do not decide for us where a topic begins or ends.

Instead, we do that, however well or badly.

Context is the vital key.

This is correct, but of absolutely no assistance in the case in point. Of COURSE context is important. But you have given none. You suggest some other 'later verses' apply, but you cite none. Jesus clearly refers to those standing right here, that some of them will be alive when these things come to pass. He also refers to 'this generation' will still be alive after the tribulation when he will come in the clouds in all his glory. 2000 years and none of it has happened. What else do suggest should be considered for context?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 183 by Danmark]

"He also refers to 'this generation' will still be alive after the tribulation when he will come in the clouds in all his glory. 2000 years and none of it has happened. What else do suggest should be considered for context?"

We need to learn Jesus' language, what did He mean by being alive for instance.
Clouds block the sun light yet He is in it in His glory.
This speaks of deeper truths. Many believe that 2nd Coming has eventuated.
There is huge opening up of religious /spiritual ideas around the world and man has inner freedom to seek and choose religious/spiritual path.

[Checkpoint]

Paragraphs, chapters, verses, and speech marks, are all later additions to scripture made by men to help us navigate; they are thus not scripture itself.

They do not decide for us where a topic begins or ends.

Instead, we do that, however well or badly.

Context is the vital key.

This is correct, but of absolutely no assistance in the case in point. Of COURSE context is important. But you have given none. You suggest some other 'later verses' apply, but you cite none.

It was not the purpose of that post to get into specifics, but to make some general yet relevant observations as a backdrop to cases such as this one we are debating.

Jesus clearly refers to those standing right here, that some of them will be alive when these things come to pass.

What exactly are you referring to here in saying "when these things come to pass"?

Those words are not in verse 28.

He also refers to 'this generation' will still be alive after the tribulation when he will come in the clouds in all his glory. 2000 years and none of it has happened.

Which means "this generation" has not yet passed away, and all things have not yet been fulfilled.

But that has no bearing on the passage we are discussing in Matthew 16.

What else do suggest should be considered for context?

Verses before 16:27 and verses after 16:28.

[polonius]

Replying to post 183 by Danmark[/url]]

"He also refers to 'this generation' will still be alive after the tribulation when he will come in the clouds in all his glory. 2000 years and none of it has happened. What else do suggest should be considered for context?"


RESPONSE: The facts of history.[/b]

We need to learn Jesus' language, what did He mean by being alive for instance.

RESPONSE: Not being dead. That should be obvious.


Clouds block the sun light yet He is in it in His glory.
This speaks of deeper truths. Many believe that 2nd Coming has eventuated.

RESPONSE: Outside of the Jehovah Witnesses, I am unaware of any major religion that makes a claim that the second coming has occurred.


There is huge opening up of religious /spiritual ideas around the world and man has inner freedom to seek and choose religious/spiritual path.

RESPONSE: And reject those that are fictional like the second coming!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 157 by Elijah John]

Prophecy witout a date. Indeed. "Moving the goalpost" is another way to say it.

But actually, we do have a date, acribed to the prediction of Jesus. "Some standing here" is a date range for the event to happen in the liftetime of his contemporaries, not to some distant, future readership.

The fact that in other places Jesus is said to have said "no one knows, only the Father" is a revision of his original time spectific predicition of Matthew 16.27-28.

Your post is a good example of "moving the goalposts".

That is what all posters are doing when they put verses 27 and 28 together and say they are about the same thing.

Different events, different time ranges, different topics, different contexts.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 187 by Checkpoint]

The predicted return in the liftime of Jesus contemporaries fits the context of the times, and of many other verses which indicate Bible writers expected the "end is nigh". Beyond just the Gospel Evanglelists, also Paul and the author of Hebrews. "in these last days" reads the opening chapter of Hebrews.

Last days? For 2000 years?

It is the apologists and advocates of Bibe perfection who are moving the goalposts, not us. "Jesus" set the goal of his own generation, apologists attempt to redefine generation, and stretch it, to included such notions as "dispensations" etc.

Also don't foget under Roman occupation, there was apolcalyptic ferver in first century Palestine.

The expectation that God's immanent intervention was nigh.

Advocates of Bible perfection ignore that historical context.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 187 by Checkpoint]

Also, if "plain meaning" favors apologists and not skeptics, why isn't Matthew 16.27-28 an Evangelical "memory verse"?

Is that passage even in the Lectionary of Liturgical Churches? I've never heard it preached in Mass.

Could it be that passage in plain reading is an embarrassment, and too difficult to explain away?

And isn't that very difficulty in explainlng passages like that a good indication that verbal, mental and theological gymnastics are necessary in order to explain it away? And change the plain meaning of the passage to make it comply with orthodoxy?