For popular or very good threads
This is a false claim. Jesus never suggested anyone embrace the wonder of life.
All depends on how you read it.

In this very chapter of Matthew, chapter 16, it says —
“verse 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Sounds rather mystical, doesn’t it? , even though it’s also saying “for my sake.”

———

Similar to a later chapter of Matthew in which Jesus says, don’t you see, whenever you have done this for the “least of these” [feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting a foreigner or those sick or in prison], you have also done it for me.

———

There’s also the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus said a lot of mystical things such as, “The meek shall inherit the Earth.” Some oil guy gave the quick quip, but not the mineral rights. We could point out that the go-go way the oil man likely lives is no way to live, especially if you tend to view most other human beings as standing in your way. But the oil man can point out, Hey, I create a lot of jobs, and there’s nothing more in keeping with human dignity than a legit job in which we really need you.

And I this I consider one of the major tensions of modern life.

———

Anyway, as a good-hearted atheist / agnostic, I’m free to pick and choose from the Bible, from other writings, and build from them all [hopefully!]
 
Last edited:
All depends on how you read it….

…Sounds rather mystical, doesn’t it? , even though it’s also saying “for my sake.”
It may sound mystical to a nonbeliever but that isn’t what I referred to as false. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus suggest anyone just embrace the wonder of life. That is the false claim you made. Jesus said “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” There’s nothing mystical in that statement nor is there anything that implies an attitude of embracing the wonder of life. Now if you can find Jesus suggesting people embracing the wonder of life and not repenting in faith, I would like to see that.
 
This is a true statement from Jesus. For starters, the word translated “kingdom” is the Greek word Basileia and it means “royalty”. Here is Strong’s Definition:
βασιλεία basileía, bas-il-i'-ah; from G935; properly, royalty, i.e. (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively):—kingdom, + reign.
In the very next chapter we read chapter 17:1-3:
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Peter, James and John all three saw Jesus in His majesty, in His glory, in His royalty. Just as He had said.
This explanation doesn't account for this part of vs. 27, "and then he will repay every man for what he has done. " In the passages you quoted (Matt. 17:1-3), it also doesn't mention Jesus appearing with angels.

I think the passages the passages that Lemur quoted in the OP refer to Judgment Day. The problematic part is that Jesus that some of the people that were with him at that time would not die until all of those details happen. I was thinking that Jesus was using "life" and "death" in some figurative way.
 
And we know that’s just not true.
That people from the 1st century AD would still be alive?

It wouldn't be unprecedented in the Bible world. Enoch and Elijah have no confirmed deaths in the Bible unlike many of the other patriarchs. In fact, I think Moses appears again in Matt. 17:1-3. Did he really die from a biblical standpoint?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Enoch and Elijah have no confirmed deaths in the Bible unlike many of the other patriarchs.
Wow, I love it! But that is really way out there.

The words which were put in Jesus’ mouth — “there are some standing here who will not taste death” — which he may or may not have actually said,

but I think it just means the second coming was going to be soon.
 
This explanation doesn't account for this part of vs. 27, "and then he will repay every man for what he has done. " In the passages you quoted (Matt. 17:1-3), it also doesn't mention Jesus appearing with angels
If I could recite the conversation in the Authorized Scooter version I believe it would go something like this: For the Son of man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Also, there are some of you who are standing here who will see the Son of Man in His royalty before you taste death.

I don’t believe Jesus was referring to only one event, but two separate ones.
 
This explanation doesn't account for this part of vs. 27, "and then he will repay every man for what he has done. " In the passages you quoted (Matt. 17:1-3), it also doesn't mention Jesus appearing with angels
If I could recite the conversation in the Authorized Scooter version I believe it would go something like this: For the Son of man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Also, there are some of you who are standing here who will see the Son of Man in His royalty before you taste death.

I don’t believe Jesus was referring to only one event, but two separate ones.
That's an interesting interpretation. Read up more on it based on what you posted in post #2.

At best, you've moved me closer to the fence. You said that Jesus was referring to separate events (taking place at separate times?). That's kind of how Christians respond to the objections that Jesus wasn't the Messiah because he didn't save Israel. Christians respond by saying, Jesus would fulfill this in 2 phases, his first and second coming.

My only doubt is that all of these details about seeing the kingdom in Matthew 16:27-28 were talked about all together, one verse after the other.

I did find an alternative explanation that caught my eye which references how Mark and Luke worded what was said in Matthew 16:28:
A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man” then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.” It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean “Second Coming” that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.<a href="https://learn.ligonier.org/articles...olding-biblical-eschatology#user-content-fn-5" data-footnote-ref="">5</a> He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18).<a href="https://learn.ligonier.org/articles...olding-biblical-eschatology#user-content-fn-6" data-footnote-ref="">6</a>
Source: https://learn.ligonier.org/articles...ot-taste-death-unfolding-biblical-eschatology

To piggy back off my reference.. Perhaps Matt. 16:28 could also refer to Pentecost
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter

“Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to . . “

or maybe the person trying to remember what Jesus said . . . was using a phrase from Daniel.

or the person trying to remember what someone else said that Jesus said.

.

.

And like bending a plastic part, it snaps back to what they’re familiar with! ? ! Yes, maybe. This is certainly a possibility.

And a Jewish person writing about Jesus or talking about Jesus is likely to be pretty familiar with Daniel.

———

@AgnosticBoy , I notice that you like drawing from websites which take a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Is this generally the case?

Yes, the literalist approach is easier to argue and debate with.

But humans tend to have more complicated views, I’ll say that.
 
Last edited: