And he said to them, "I tell you the truth...

>And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

well Jesus was standing there right? he's still alive in heaven. checkmate atheists!

Keep reading. They thought John was going to live forever. There's a reason for that.

Jesus must have been looking at John when he said it.

And John saw Jesus coming down from heaven in glory before he died, and wrote of the experience in the Revelation.

Some neither precludes all nor one.

Matthew 16:28

>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.

Three of those standing there were Peter, James, and John

The next verses, Matthew 17:1-2:

>1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

This is called the Transfiguration. This is what 16:28 referred to.

>They thought John was going to live forever

Really?

This was a false belief. John addressed this in his own book

John 21:21-23

>21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

>22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

>23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Jesus tells us many ways to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the most important being that "the Kingdom of God is within you"

There are 3 important verses before Matthew 16:28

>Whoever loses there life, will gain life
>What profit is it if one gains the world and loses his own soul?
>The Son of Man comes with the angels to repay us according to our works

No, no it is not.

Yes.

John 21
Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Revelation 19
Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Seeing the transfiguration was not seeing the Kingdom of God.

Seeing the Second Coming is seeing the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

What Jesus said is not false.

If I will that he remain till I come....

Further, John proved himself unkillable when they failed to boil him in oil. Hence the exile onto Patmos. Where he was whisked into the third heaven and saw Jesus descend from heaven in glory.

Just as Jesus said.

The transfiguration was just some last minute game plans for the two witnesses to go over, with Moses finally reaching the promised land.

So is John still alive? Where is he?

Yes, he's alive, seated in heaven with the other 23 elders.

In 95 AD, he saw our future, then went back and wrote about it.

What's the difference between being alive and immortal in heaven vs being dead?

John was not immortal. They assumed John would have to be immortal. They assumed wrong. John was whisked into the third heaven by the Holy Spirit, much as Paul was, and saw things in our future. The third heaven, where God and the angels currently reside, do not run on our timespace track. It overlaps us at all points and at all times.

So John, in his natural physical life span, fulfilled this prophecy at age 80 or 90 something.

Then John physically died, and his spirit went to be with the Lord. At the rapture, he will receive his new eternal body like the one Jesus rose in. The one that could move at will, appear and be gone, but still ate and drank. A physical, eternal body.

The difference would be that after a man is found righteous by his faith, justified by his belief, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, he is glorified in heaven.

It is that glorification I look forward to.

To be dead is merely to be separated from God. Most people are dead right now, and unless they are resurrected to eternal life, they stay dead and suffer the second death, which is an eternal separation from God.

See, God is Life. So if a man has the Spirit, he has Life. And if he does not have the Spirit, he does not have life.

That's how Adam and Eve died the day they sinned, yet lived physically for centuries. They were created to be immortal, but lost that too. They truly died the day they ate the forbidden fruit, just as God said.

And proving the serpent a liar.

The Apostle John or John of Patmos?

>The one that could move at will, appear and be gone, but still ate and drank. A physical, eternal body.
>appear and be gone
and you don't see how people could interpret the resurrection as a bunch of people having visions?

Not that user but people could interpret the Resurrection as a vision; yet Thomas actually touches Jesus physically.

As for what happens after the bodily resurrection, then Jesus left earth, which means either he quit his body; or his body actually rose into heaven

None who followed or follow Christ are or will be dead.

>yet Thomas actually touches Jesus physically
I don't think that this is out of the question for people having visions to claim. vivid hallucinations of the gods were pretty common at the time. they didn't take hallucinogens but pagans and christians alike had a practice of fasting for the expressed purpose of seeing gods, angels, etc, which we know makes you more prone to hallucinating.

>As for what happens after the bodily resurrection, then Jesus left earth, which means either he quit his body; or his body actually rose into heaven
this is the thing that really gets me: undeniable proof of Jesus's resurrection, his living body still with wounds in it from the crucifixion leaves the earth, instead of staying. Imagine if Jesus stayed around and was still walking among us instead of leaving to come back for some melodramatic second coming. no one would be able to deny his existence and the choice would be much more clear

Nice explaining away, faggots. But if this was the case, then he wouldn't have said some of you will not taste death, but all of you will not taste death, because he was talking to the disciples, unless you hold that some of them are not saved or in heaven. Moreover according to your explanation they did die and wen to heaven, so they did taste death. Your explanation would only make sense if all of them ascended to heaven bodily like Enoch and Mary without physically dying. If you physically die then you taste death, even I you are resurrected afterwards.

The Jesus cult was an apocalyptic cult that expected the end of the world to be soon. As it didn't happen they kept moving the goal post just like they do today, and dumb people believe in it just like they do today. Humanity hasn't changed all that much, huh?

One and the same.

I do, yes.

It's more glorious than that though.

I think you need to read it again.

John was still naturally alive when he basically time traveled into our future. He had not tasted death until he saw Jesus coming into his kingdom in glory.

Christianity is apocalyptic, yes.

It is the original from whence spring cults. People claiming to be the messiah. People claiming to have a secret revelation, a new gospel. People who say only their group goes to heaven, even if they were formed in the 6th century AD, or the 19th century AD. And most if not all cult leaders have sex with children. It's their hallmark.

Nice try, but it is clear from the context that he is talking about his actual comeback not a vision.

>For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

And some of you will not taste death before... You get to see this in a vision?? What kind of lame promise is that? Your explanation is one that helps save face but it makes no sense and you are only convincing those that want to be convinced.

What gets me here is that Joseph of Aramathia makes sure he gets to bury Jesus; so it is likely they did something to preserve His physical body, which is how Thomas touched Him after His Resurrection.

Once Jesus finished His work, He ascended after the Resurrection, how? Who knows, but He then physically left the world, which then is now Spirit. He walks among us in Spirit.

Not that user, I think it means the Son of Man coming with his angels to reward each person may not exactly be a future physical vision, but something that happens to every person.

The verses before Jesus says "whoever loses his life for my sake, gains it" and "what profit is it if a man gains the world and loses his own soul?" THEN He mentions the Son of Man coming with His angels.

The Son of Man and angels reward those who "lose their life, for they have found life" (paraphrasing), and warn against "gaining the world, losing the soul"

Basically, we are judged and rewarded by how well we adhere to what it says; "when we lose ourselves for the sake of the truth, that is life" meaning that through the labor of the cross, we gain eternal life.

"To gain the world and lose the soul" we are being told that our pursuit for gain, what we gain is often temporary, and many times we forsake virtues for these things.

The "angels in the sky" is sort of like karma, depending on how well we adhere to using virtues and truth seeking, even if it hurts us, we have "found life" which generally will mean more that "hey I found life" but a "spiritual truth" that can only be understood

You argue like a lawyer, arguing about technicalities.

First you take some of you to mean one of you, because technically some doesn't preclude one. Then you assume this one is the apostle John. Then you assume, contrary to contemporary scholarship and even some church fathers, that the apostle John is the same person as John of Patmos, without proving it. Then you argue, since he was taken up to heaven before physically dying, he technically didn't taste death. And since he had a vision then this technically fulfills the prophecy that some of you will see the kingdom o God, because he saw it, right?

But you don't realize that readers who don't partake of your bias are not ready to take the same uncritical leaps of faith as you do.

It is clear from the language of the gospel and revelation that the authors expected the second coming to be soon. Revelation says these things will come to pass soon. Soon is not one, two, three thousand years into the future. "But durr one thousand years is a day for God." But it's not God saying soon, but a human speaking to a human audience, and he doesn't qualify it, saying soon from the point of view of God, just soon.

Therefore your legalistic apology about technicalities fails when context is taken into consideration. I won't even use the cheap argument that the entire bible is objectively proven wrong by science anyway, as of now.

Your apology serves one purpose and one purpose only. To convince those that already want to be convinced.

literally
>implying

That was a different user. They could very well be two different John's, so we have to look into it because sometimes they are different and other times they are the same. It is not about the author, because the authors of the Bible were not concerned with writing about themselves. As for "John not tasting death", there is not a whole bunch of explanation here. Perhaps his soul went into a heavenly realm, but his body faded away.

Whoever wrote it, the author of revelation says these things must soon come to pass. Soon doesn't mean two, three thousand years. This is the contrary of soon. I don't have a good enough reason to believe that a word in the bible or any text means the contrary of what it means. Do other words in the bible mean the contrary of what it means? Why stop at soon? Does left mean right, and true means false? But if we take the plane meaning of the text without baseless assumptions and biased contortions, then soon means soon. Now soon can be taken to mean within the one's lifetime at max (and this is already stretching). This interpretation matches perfectly with the verse some of you will not taste death... And that other verse you will not all sleep... From the plane meaning of the texts, the authors of the gospel expected the second coming to happen withing the lifetimes of at least some of them. History has shown this belief to be incorrect, and Christianity to be a false religion. I'm sorry.

Soon means soon, it is an indefinite time. The Son of Man returns with His angels to every person according to their karma; that is why the verses before talk about "losing your self, to gain life" and "gaining the world, losing the soul." There is either reward or judgment.

Matthew 16 starts off with people asking Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus tells them the same way Jonah spent 3 days in a whale, He will spend three days "in the earth".

Then Jesus uses Peter's testimony as the foundation for His "church", and then Peter tries to stop Jesus.

This doesn't "prove it to be false", there is a problem with trying to read the text just by outward appearance. You are looking for a second coming outside of yourself; which literally makes sense, but also it denies the principle of the Spirit, the inward meaning of the text, where in reality, the second coming was that ascension after Jesus left His physical body, after His resurrection He ascended, and He comes to everyone with His angels to bring rewards and judgment.

This is why Jesus spoke in parables.

Death to life, John's first epistle, they pass from death to life by loving, death is not having love for one another.
>We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
To murder a brother is to cut one off with hate, by shutting off a life, eternal life is forfeited

>15Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

That by this, Jesus died for us
>16We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.…

John saw his actual comeback.

Not a vision.

The things of God will not make sense to you until you become a child of God. What you posted is absolute rubbish.

People like you do not understand spiritual things because you're not filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

It's just that simple.

I don't have to run around proving things that are objectively true.

A thousand years is as a day to Jesus.

He's been gone two days.

Jesus bodily ascended into heaven 40 days after he rose from the dead.

50 days after he rose from the dead, on the Day of Pentecost, he sent the Holy Spirit down to fill the apostles with the power of the Holy Spirit, they commenced speaking in tongues and preaching the gospel, and 3000 men were saved that day.

He who descended is the same as he who ascended.

>Then you assume this one is the apostle John.

No assumptions, only truth.

Revelation 1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

Justin Martyr [Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308] (a.d. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment. This testimony of Justin is referred to also by Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.18]. Justin Martyr, in the early part of the second century, held his controversy with Trypho, a learned Jew, at Ephesus, where John had been living thirty or thirty-five years before: he says that “the Revelation had been given to John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ.”1

1. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Re 1:1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

This is when Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus' body, and Nicodemus brings seventy five pounds of ointment to bury Jesus. It sounds like they are preserving His body, much like Egyptians did.
>Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate for permission to take down Jesus' body. When Pilate gave permission, Joseph came and took the body away.
>He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
>Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

Then, in the same Gospel, Thomas, who denied the Resurrection at first ("Sadducess" denied Resurrection), Thomas then believes after he touches the wounds of Jesus after He died, except Jesus wasn't dead anymore.
> 27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
>28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”…

Yes, they partially embalmed Jesus because they only had from 3 pm to sundown to ask for the body, get the body, wrap the body, and bury the body.

The women on Sunday morning were coming to finish the embalming job, because it was unfinished, and had no way to open the tomb. Pretty optimistic if you ask me.

Also, women were not considered witnesses, so this story would be an awful contrivance if it relied on the witness of women, falsely.

Thomas never touched the risen Jesus; seeing was enough.

The rubbish bit was Joseph of Arimathea doing something nefarious, Thomas touching a dead body, and Jesus was preserved not by the partial embalming, but because God was not going to let his Son see any corruption:

Acts 2
For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
...
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
...
but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.

Jesus ascended into heaven straight up, by will. Then he vanished, and his men were craning their necks to see where he went. A few angels appeared and told them that Jesus was gone, but he's coming back the same way he left.

The Spirit lives in all who consent to be saved.

>Thomas never touched the risen Jesus; seeing was enough.
Jesus told him to put his fingers in His wounds. Thomas definitely would have listened and touched the wounds. Joseph could have done something to help preserve the body because they knew He was going to come back to life after He just died.

>because they knew He was going to come back to life
I don't think they did though. From the Last Supper to the Crucifixion the disciples practically stand around gawking like idiots.

Read it for yourself.

And remember, the other disciples had already been visited by Jesus, and saw him, and talked to him, and hugged him, etc. Thomas was just asking for what they had already received.

John 20
And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

>disciple practically stand around gawking like idiots
What Bible are you reading?

It's weird how I gave you bible verses about how God was not going to allow his son to see corruption, to rot, to decay, and you still insist on other factors.

Where do you get your information about Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea, if not from the bible?

The one you haven't.

There is different ways too look at it. The physical resurrection and then in the beginning of Acts the ascension into heaven. It is just noted to see that Joseph and Nicodemus take Jesus' body. The soul of Jesus who "descends into hell in the Apostle's creed" did not stay in Hades, and the flesh didn't see corruption because 3 days after it lost all of its vital signs, it was reanimated for Jesus to bodily have resurrected.

"They" was more in context of Joseph and Nicodemus, they knew that He was coming back to life, as for the disciples and Apostles, I would say they were a little confused, not gawking around like idiots, because they were genuinely confused during the time.

Yeah, if you have to distort the meaning of words in order to validate your belief system, it speaks volumes about said belief system. Soon means soon. It didn't happen. Deal with

It did happen.

Soon means soon. The other post said soon means;
>The Jesus cult was an apocalyptic cult that expected the end of the world to be soon
>Soon doesn't mean two, three thousand years. This is the contrary of soon
>Now soon can be taken to mean within the one's lifetime at max (and this is already stretching). This interpretation matches perfectly with the verse some of you will not taste death...

Why over complicate the meaning of soon? Jesus returns soon, and this happens to every person.

sounds like jesus lead peter, james, and john to a spot for them to gangbang and bukkake him

>Why over complicate the meaning of soon
I'm not the one over complicating the meaning of soon, Christians are. Soon means an indefinite, but short period of time. Thousands of years is not soon.

The poster you quoted has a peculiar interpretation of scripture not shared by the majority of Christians. There's no evidence that early Christians believed in karma. The most common interpretation of this prophecy is that it is about the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. It didn't happen. This failed prophecy uttered by Jesus proves that Christianity is a false religion.

Soon is a very vague word.

> There's no evidence that early Christians believed in karma
Everyone believes in karma it is a law, all it means is that every action has an equal reaction, that is a term that is not outside Science. It is something you learn, cause and effect, and action. It is understood, and karma is in everything, and it's themes are noted throughout the Bible.

> The most common interpretation of this prophecy is that it is about the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. It didn't happen. This failed prophecy uttered by Jesus proves that Christianity is a false religion.

The most common interpretation is not always the right one. If the Bible said everything YouTube Christians said, it would be directly worded in the Bible that way. People can lie to you very easily.

And how do you read what Jesus says in the Bible? Think about it, where is this literal meaning coming from? Why does everyone believe it is so simple "oh the bible and church says it this way that's it", talking about Jesus, of course there is going to be manifold meanings and teachings that can only be experienced and not explained, He tells us this in the Bible.
>The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

>He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them

We think because we are Christian we know all the secrets Jesus taught, but we don't, even if we think we do. Or because we did a Google search on Christianity , now we have all the evidence to point out why it's "fake" even though we use a superficial interpretation that isn't originally ours, but a combination between our ideas and the ideas of other people on the internet who don't have always have the best opinions.

You win. I am powerless before your autism.

To the perverse, all things are perverse.

>This failed prophecy uttered by Jesus proves that Christianity is a false religion.

You can't tell the difference between soon and imminent.

Come back when you can.

>2000+ is soon
You wouldn't allow this stretch for any other religion. I've seen Christians analyze and criticize other religions. Christians can be very critical ad inquisitive about other religions, but when it comes to their own, the concede themselves great liberties. But this is because of their bias. They think that they are making grand apologetics, but anyone that doesn't share their bias and looks at these fanciful explanations is not convinced.