Tony Snow, RIP

[poptart]

so why do you suppose "god" made so much of the land virtually uninhabitable (see Sahara, Arabian, and Gobi deserts)

some design

You yourself are a mere creation, Felix.


Mvscal, Felix, whoever ....

The Bible, through the prophets, gave many specific 'qualifications' that the Messiah would need to meet in order to be recognized as such -- so that not just anyone could lay claim to being that person.

The nature of fulfillment of these things (many or most of them beyond His own control) on the part of Jesus Christ is so overwhelmingly remarkable that only a person of ZERO logic or common sense could deny that He is indeed the Christ.

Or ... if one chooses to remain blind to it all.


There is more than ample 'evidence' ... 'proof' ... or whatever you wish to call it, of God.

[War Wagon]

There is more than ample 'evidence' ... 'proof' ... or whatever you wish to call it, of God.

The evidence of things unseen.

aka "faith".

No use in trying to preach that concept to those that can't or won't accept it.

Your mission here has failed. You'd be better off trying to convert aborigenes in Australia... or S. Korea... wait, how's that working out?

[huh?]

If god does exist, do you think his hair was as nice as Tony Snow's?

probably...I'm sure He parts it down the middle though

Well that's just silly, back off topic though.

I am an agnostic, it seems to me that one THEORY is as logical as another. It does seem equally impossible to prove or diaprove anything as it relates to a supreme being. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how the lack of evidence that something is possible proves that it is impossible. That sort of "logic" seems flawed to me.

If you gave me a "pick or die" sort of question I'd say that it seems more likely that there was a Creator than not. Whether he/she/they care a whit about what happens or not I couldn't say. The mere fact that a group of misfits that have never met and yet discuss the existence of a creator over a binary system which is totally foreign to how we would discuss things in person leads me to believe that anything is possible.

*Edited to add that the Cubs will win the world series this year, Pickle's mom has had her guts wobbled out by Vic, and God wouldn't part his hair down the middle.*

That's really it in a nutshell for me...anything is possible. Believe what works for you, let others do the same. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Felix]

There is more than ample 'evidence' ... 'proof' ... or whatever you wish to call it, of God.

I've got to honest with you here tart, discussing religion with somebody that believes the earth is 6,000 years old is really a lost cause...no offense

[poptart]

Except that I'm not saying that the earth is 6,000 yrs old.

I'm saying that Jesus' unique and remarkable fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy regarding exactly who and what the Messiah would be, unmistakably shows Him to be the Christ.


This is the truth.

[Mister Bushice]

Bah. Self fulfilling prophecy.

And all the crap written about his life in the bible is so off it's clearly been sanitized for your devotion.

Nice hijack, btw. :)

[poptart]

Self fulfilling prophecy.

No.

Do your looking into it and see how much prophecy about Himself Jesus fulfilled that was entirely beyond His control.


I didn't hijack the thread, I gave reply to mvscal's wack assertion that there is no 'evidence' for God.

[smackaholic]

Who is to sat this "prophecy" wasn't written down after the fact?

Oh, yeah, that's right, it was.

Prophecizing after the fact sure is easier than doing it before hand.

[poptart]

Tell me you're drunk off your @ss, please.

[BSmack]

If god does exist, do you think his hair was as nice as Tony Snow's?

Before or after Chemo?

[Felix]

Do your looking into it and see how much prophecy about Himself Jesus fulfilled that was entirely beyond His control.

okay tart, you want to convince me respond to the challenges of this video and I'll convert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You want me to believe that god decided about 2,000 years ago that he should probably step in and start doing something after the earth had been in existence for millions and millions of years??!?!?!

Riiiiiiiight

And how do you explain that over 98% of the species that "god created" have now gone extinct...what the hell kind of perfect creation is that?

[smackaholic]

If god does exist, do you think his hair was as nice as Tony Snow's?

Before or after Chemo?

Look, if there is a god, he's an old jewish guy. Therefore, it's probably mostly gray with a little curl to it and pretty thin on top. So, he prolly parts it about half an inch over his left ear into a rather comical looking combover.

His hippy kid jesus on the other hand has probably kept it long, probably pulled back into a pony tail and I'm sure he still has the ratty old hippy dude beard.

If he does ever decide to get off the couch and do this second coming thing, I hope he atleast gets a haircut. And make it a nice sensible george bush type of haircut. If he comes back looking like pat reilly or john kerry, I'm going stay at home non practicing hindu.

[poptart]

Felix, you can set whatever 'standard' for prophecy that you want to set.
That's your freedom.

There are some 60 'major' Messianic prophecies which Jesus fulfilled and around 270 'ramifications' likewise fulfilled by Him.
There is no Messianic prophecy not fulfilled by Him ... save for the ones that are designated to be fulfilled at His 2nd coming.

Through the prophets, God set forth a historical 'address' which would single out the Messiah from any other person who has ever lived -- past, present or future.
The specifics of this 'address' were laid out in Old Testament writings which were all made ... at least 400 years before His arrival, and it was all fulfilled by Him.

Amazing, nearly unfathomable really.

That VERY specific address in history goes as such ...

First, the date and location of the coming of the Messiah are SPECIFICALLY ON TARGET as foretold in Daniel 9:25,26 and Micah 5:2.

- The WHO IT IS begins in Genesis 3:15 when we are told that the Messiah would come through the seed of the woman (virgin birth). Nowhere else in the entirety of Scripture is anyone said to be born of seed of anything other than ... man, except just this one time. It's GOD's seed -- the Christ.

- In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the address down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham. All the people of the world are traced back to these three men, but God eliminated two thirds of mankind as possible Messiahs by saying that He would come through the line of Shem.

- The God again narrowed the field by saying (Genesis 12) that the Messiah would come through the line of Abraham -- and then God narrowed that in half by saying He would come through the line of Abraham's son Isaac and not Ishamael.

- Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau and God said the Messiah would come through the line of Jacob.

- Jacob had 12 sons and God eliminated 11/12ths of possibilities for the Messiah when He said He would come through the line of Judah. And of all the lines from Judah, God said the Messiah would come through the line of Jesse.

- Jesse has 8 children and God eliminated 7/8ths when saying that He would come through the house of David.

This address in history was very uniquely fulfilled by Jesus.
And this is to say nothing of the mountain of other prophecy which was uniquely fufilled by Him.

It is why I stated that to ignore this you must either have NO sense of logic or have made a decision to be blind to it.

You want me to believe that god decided about 2,000 years ago that he should probably step in and start doing something after the earth had been in existence for millions and millions of years??!?!?!

I guess this was in response to my saying that I was not making the point that the earth was 6,000 yrs old?

God 'did something' immediately after man was deceived by satan and fell into darkness apart from Him.
He gave the Gospel and promised the Messiah, who would crush the devil and liberate man, would be coming.
All throughout the Old Testament, God is preparing the way for the coming Messiah.
It's what it's all about.

The Bible gives no age for the earth.
The Bible does not tell us everything, it tells us what God has chosen to reveal to us.
It tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
And by tracing lineage given in the Bible -- without any pauses -- you can say that about 6000 yrs have passed.

[LTS TRN 2]

So.....uh, Popper....how are those Koreans cottening to Christ?

[Mister Bushice]

That VERY specific address in history goes as such ...

First, the date and location of the coming of the Messiah are SPECIFICALLY ON TARGET as foretold in Daniel 9:25,26 and Micah 5:2.

- The WHO IT IS begins in Genesis 3:15 when we are told that the Messiah would come through the seed of the woman (virgin birth). Nowhere else in the entirety of Scripture is anyone said to be born of seed of anything other than ... man, except just this one time. It's GOD's seed -- the Christ.

- In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the address down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham. All the people of the world are traced back to these three men, but God eliminated two thirds of mankind as possible Messiahs by saying that He would come through the line of Shem.

- The God again narrowed the field by saying (Genesis 12) that the Messiah would come through the line of Abraham -- and then God narrowed that in half by saying He would come through the line of Abraham's son Isaac and not Ishamael.

- Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau and God said the Messiah would come through the line of Jacob.

- Jacob had 12 sons and God eliminated 11/12ths of possibilities for the Messiah when He said He would come through the line of Judah. And of all the lines from Judah, God said the Messiah would come through the line of Jesse.

- Jesse has 8 children and God eliminated 7/8ths when saying that He would come through the house of David.

This address in history was very uniquely fulfilled by Jesus.
And this is to say nothing of the mountain of other prophecy which was uniquely fufilled by Him.

It is why I stated that to ignore this you must either have NO sense of logic or have made a decision to be blind to it.

Or else, everyone* who read the old testament over the centuries knew what was to come, and named their kids the right names, according to bible prophecy.

The bible. Written by men, followed by men.

*= the "self fulfilling" part, where the descendants read what was to happen, and made it so.

[poptart]

And that was intended as a serious post??

Just checkin'.


I've read and heard many takes attempting to dismiss what is very obvious (that Jesus very uniquely came at the exact time, place and VERY narrow lineage as given by the prophets), but your take breaks new ground in the creativity dept.

So ups to you.

Now I'm going to go into deep meditation over your theory, but in the meantime, can you tell me, when exactly was it that you began doing LSD?

[Goober McTuber]

when exactly was it that you began doing LSD?

Summer of 1971.

[Felix]

And that was intended as a serious post??

okay here's a serious obsevation

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lays hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17-18

so have you been handling puff adders/cobras and drinking strychnine lately?

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God"--Deut. 22:5

so what should we do about the abominations of women wearing pants-stone them to death?

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord"--Lev. 19:28

lots of death sentences with this

A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother's wife (Deut. 25:5-6)

that's pretty sick, even by biblical standards

(rationalizations to follow)

[Smackie Chan]

The Bible, through the prophets, gave many specific 'qualifications' that the Messiah would need to meet in order to be recognized as such -- so that not just anyone could lay claim to being that person.

Would the OT "prophecy" of a virgin birth be one of those qualifications? If so:

Prophecy of Virgin Birth

Probably the most famous of all prophecies is the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus. As we shall soon see, this is not a prophecy of a virgin birth, not a prophecy about Jesus and probably not a prophecy at all. When examined in the context of the surrounding chapters of this book, this verse looks more like a discussion of an upcoming event in the author's life.

The verse thought to be a prophecy appears at Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Before you accuse me of fudging the verse by replacing virgin with "young woman" I assure you that I pulled this out of the most accurate translation of the Bible that there is, the Revised Standard Version. That this is the correct word used here can be seen from comparing how the word translated as "young woman" is translated in other places.

The Hebrew word is ALMAH (al-mah) and it is used 7 times in the Bible. Strictly speaking, it means young woman but depending on the Bible that you are using, it is translated as virgin, maiden and damsel, as well. There is another Hebrew word which is specifically translated as virgin. It is BETHULAH (be-too-lah) and it appears in the Bible 50 times. 38 times it is translated as virgin while the other 12 are spread out over the words maid and maiden. As you can see, there is some question if this word is properly translated.

Beyond the issue of translation is the problem of how the alleged prophecy sits within the verses and chapters around it. Here is some background behind the verse at Isaiah 7:14:

In the first verse of the chapter, we are given the historical context. It is the time of King Ahaz of Judah. It is not a good time for the kingdom as the two nations of Israel and Assyria are marching towards Judah to do battle. At verse three, we are told that the Lord says to Isaiah that he should go to meet King Ahaz and tell him to go and meet the other two kings. Isaiah is told to tell Ahaz that there is nothing to fear from the two kings as they will be defeated and destroyed.

In verse 11, the Lord tells Ahaz to ask him for a sign that these things would come to pass. Ahaz refuses, stating that he will not put the Lord to the test. In response to this, the Lord says that the sign would be given anyway, and that a young woman would bear a child and it would be named Immanuel.

If this were the end of the prophecy and a new subject was started, we might suppose that this is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus, even though Jesus' name is not used. Immanuel does mean "god is with us" but that does not constitute that this would be Jesus. There is more to the prophecy, however, as we see in the two verses directly following 7:14:

15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

We can see from these two subsequent verses that the whole purpose of the prophecy is that a child would be born in Ahaz's time that would be a sign that the two attacking countries would be deserted. Would a birth some 700 years later (when Jesus was born) have been any kind of sign to King Ahaz? No, of course not. He was long dead before Jesus was born.

Finally, we see that in the very next chapter of Isaiah there is a birth. We know that this is the prophecied child to be born simply based on the following two verses from Isaiah 8:

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz
4 for before the child knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

While we do not know the significance of the name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz, we do know that it can not be linked up with Jesus' name or Immanuel. We do see, however, know that this is the child prophecied in Isaiah 7:14 as verse 4 here makes the same claim as the verses following 7:14.

Conclusion

We see above that there are numerous problems with this being a prophecy of Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. We see that Isaiah was familiar with the term BETHULAH and used it when he wanted to convey a woman's virginity. That he did not employ it at 7:14 seems to indicate that this is not what he meant for this prophecy. In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.

Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Prophecy busted.

http://www.cygnus-study.com/

[Mister Bushice]

I've read and heard many takes attempting to dismiss what is very obvious (that Jesus very uniquely came at the exact time, place and VERY narrow lineage as given by the prophets), but your take breaks new ground in the creativity dept.

So the OT bible clearly outlines the lineages including the names of all of the descendants for generations prior to jesus being born, and you think that the descendants of each generation didn't name their kids what the bible indicated they should be named?

If I read a book once, the second time I read it, I will know how it ends....

Now I'm going to go into deep meditation over your theory, but in the meantime, can you tell me, when exactly was it that you began doing LSD?

Hey, I'm not the one who believes in a virgin giving birth.

[warren]

I'm not obliged to disprove anything for which there is no evidence.

If your hypothesis is that some form of "higher power" was at work in the creation of the universe then, by all means, submit some evidence to that effect.

I'll be standing by.

I agree with this statement 100%, I am a "leap of faith" Kierkegard type because I want to.

However, and I know this thread has nothing to do with this topic, but my critisizm of you Mvscal, is that you belittle a person of history that the overwhelming scientific, atheist, agnostic people agree that not only existed but that revolutionized the way that human's treat each other.

You don't have to believe in loaves and fishes to believe in forgiveness and redemption, and you damn sure don't have to call him a dirty fucking hippy. That's reserves for fat ass, activist moron Abbie whateverthe fuck his name was.

that's it.

[Diogenes]

However, and I know this thread has nothing to do with this topic...

...but as soon as you respond to some random idiotic atheist comment you're going to end up with a 7 page hijack.

Nice job.

[Dinsdale]

You don't have to believe in loaves and fishes to believe in forgiveness and redemption, and you damn sure don't have to call him a dirty fucking hippy. That's reserves for fat ass, activist moron Abbie whateverthe fuck his name was.

So, you get to make the rules for how Warren conducts himself, based on a "leap of faith," but you also get to make the rules for how mvscal conducts himself?


The phrase "typical christian" comes to mind.

[Felix]

...but as soon as you respond to some random idiotic atheist comment you're going to end up with a 7 page hijack.

Nice job.

okay back on topic

RIP Tony Snow and his hair

happy now?

[smackaholic]

Let's see if I got this right. "Prophecy" called Jesus' appearance with great accuracy. It also said there will be a second coming.

Where's the great fukking accuracy that was exibited first time around? Funny how there isn't such a second coming callout.

Actually, there have been....many. Ofcourse, after they don't quite pan out, they are dismissed. But, the fukking faithful keep on biting.

Just curious. How many other prophecies were there that didn't catch on before or after JC?

And assuming that dirty old hippy is gonna do a second act, wtf is keeping him?

[smackaholic]

A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother's wife (Deut. 25:5-6)

that's pretty sick, even by biblical standards

(rationalizations to follow)

not if she's got nice tits.

[poptart]

Felix, if you want to get into a host of questions like that, please take 'em to the Theology Forum.
If so, I'll try to give a response to them as time permits.


Smackie, we had some discussion about Isaiah 7:14 before and this was what I wrote at that time:



1. The translators translated Isaiah 7:14, before Jesus was born and before there was any reason to 'mistranslate' the Hebrew word, and the word though, not exclusively meaning 'virgin' was understood by the context to mean 'virgin'.

2. It says there in Isaiah 7:14 that the Lord will give a sign.
And the GREAT sign from God is, ......

> drum roll <

A young woman will give birth.
Wowz .... good one, God.
Got any more dazzling "signs" you wanna show us??

It's just silly.
The denial that this is about a virgin is right in line with the denial about Genesis 3:15 being about the Christ.
Sure, right after the most tragic event in the history of mankind(Genesis 3:1-6), God is talking about how men and snakes will forever be enemies. lolz

3. Going a bit further in Isaiah (9:5,6) we see this about the Child coming from the virgin .....

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this



This thread ....

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=26952&p=494812&hil ... ah#p494812" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Felix]

Going a bit further in Isaiah (9:5,6) we see this about the Child coming from the virgin .....[/i]

Jesus also said he'd be back before the apostles died, so the whole "fulfilling prophecy" is a load of horseshit

if you'd like I'll quote the verse from the Bible, but I'm sure that as an apologetic you'll have some off the wall reason why that particular prophecy wasn't fulfilled....you always do

[poptart]

Felix, the very last things that Jesus told the apostles is recorded in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1:8.

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Understanding the very obvious, that those apostles could not possibly take the Gospel to the uttermost part of the earth, He in no way promised that He would return before their death.

Matthew 28:19 speaks similarly, saying that the Gospel must be preached to all nations before the end, something those particular folks could not even begin to accomplish.

[Felix]

Felix, the very last things that Jesus told the apostles is recorded in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1:8.

I didn't ask about the last thing Jesus said

What I said is that Jesus promised he'd be back before they died

Mark 13:30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 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.

Matthew 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 21:32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

pretty explicit in his promise to return BEFORE they died

(apologetic explanation in 4...3...2...)

[Diogenes]

...but as soon as you respond to some random idiotic atheist comment you're going to end up with a 7 page hijack.

Nice job.

okay back on topic

RIP Tony Snow and his hair

happy now?

Thanks.

Carry on with the idiocy...

[LTS TRN 2]

Hey! Fuck your tedious faux religious twaddle...it's obsolete..

Tony Snow was a totally fake and hollow self-eviscerating puppet for a demented and doomed paradigm..

He was the Barry Manilow of reality...

WW :wink:

[Mister Bushice]

Felix, the very last things that Jesus told the apostles is recorded in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1:8.

I didn't ask about the last thing Jesus said

What I said is that Jesus promised he'd be back before they died

Mark 13:30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 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.

Matthew 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 21:32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

pretty explicit in his promise to return BEFORE they died

(apologetic explanation in 4...3...2...)

I see your confusion, and I'll raise you two questions.

How old were Matthew Mark and Luke when they wrote those gospels?

Do you think that somewhere between your 30th and 50th wedding anniversary you can have everyone who was present at the rehearsal dinner before your wedding write down every word that was said by you at that dinner and have it be accurate and true?

[poptart]

Felix, to understand singular verses you have to see in what context they were made.
This is why 'skeptics annotated' and other such sites would really be laughable ... if they weren't so sad.

Out of the five verses that you've questioned there, you have three questions, because Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 are about the very same thing.

So lumping those three rightfully together, here is the answer to your first question:

Matthew 24 (to use one of the three verses you question on this topic) is Jesus telling of events that will take place before the end time.
Your specific question is about what He said in verse 34, but if you look earlier in His 'speech' ... at verse 14, He says this, ...

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

And this is why I noted in my previous post for you to see Act 1:8 and Matthew 28:19.
Because the same information is given there.
And it is the answer to your question.

The Gospel will (as Jesus said, and is recored in numerous places) need to be preached to all the world before the end comes.
And those specific folks he was addressing at that time were not going to carry that mission out before they died ... obviously.
This is a task that current believers are continuing to carry out.

And likewise in the Mark verse that you questioned (13:30), we see that earlier in that same chapter (the same 'speech' by Jesus) it is recorded that Jesus said the Gospel must go to all the world first, before the end comes.
That is in verse 10 of Mark.

So certainly we are told so many times that the Gospel must first be preached to all nations, to all the world before the end will come.
The 'few' specific folks that Jesus was addressing at the time those words were spoken could NOT carry that out, so of course that is a commission to all future believers.

What it comes down to is that word 'generation' does not have the meaning to it that you wish to assign to it.
The Hebrew-Greek-English translation produces words that 'best' describe the original meaning of what was spoken, but it is not always exact ... or precise.

That 'generation' word used there has some definite meaning -- a period of time of some length, or a group of people (the family of believers), or some such thing -- but it is not exactly clear to us what it is.

But what IS clear is that it doesn't have the 40 yr, or 80 yr, or whatever number you (or other people) typically wish to put to it, meaning, because it is repeatedly recorded that Jesus said the Gospel must first be preached to all nations, to all the world, before the end will come -- and that is something that only believers WAY past those few present when Jesus spoke would be able to carry out.




To the second question you have, Matthew 16:28 (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), this is the answer:

It's short and simple.
He was speaking of His resurrection and not of His 2nd coming.
By being witnesses to His resurrection, they saw Him come as victorious over death and with all power in Heaven and Earth (Matthew 28:18).
His Kingdom.



To the third question you have 1 Thes 4:16,17, it is also short and simple:

The 'we' that Paul used was simply a reference to any believer who is alive at the time of the 2nd coming of the Lord.

[Felix]

Carry on with the idiocy

go fuck yourself hammerhead

context

ah the age old "you're taking it out of context" ploy

nice try

[Diogenes]

Carry on with the idiocy.

go fuck yourself hammerhead

Oh Snap!

[Felix]

Oh Snap!

I just find it incredibly tedious that you have to log in and reiterate an assertion that somehow this discussion is beneath you

ponderous indeed

[poptart]

ah the age old "you're taking it out of context" ploy

It's basic common sense to look at context, Felix.

Cherry picking verses and saying, "The Bible says ... THIS ..." is pretty strange.


Unfortunately, both some believers and non-believers do it to try to make some point which does not exist.

[Mister Bushice]

I didn't ask about the last thing Jesus said

What I said is that Jesus promised he'd be back before they died

Mark 13:30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 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.

Matthew 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 21:32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

pretty explicit in his promise to return BEFORE they died

(apologetic explanation in 4...3...2...)

I see your confusion, and I'll raise you two questions.

How old were Matthew Mark and Luke when they wrote those gospels?

Do you think that somewhere between your 30th and 50th wedding anniversary you can have everyone who was present at the rehearsal dinner before your wedding write down every word that was said by you at that dinner and have it be accurate and true?

Ok I'll answer the first one. You can get back to me when you hit one of those anniversaries :)

Marks gospel was the first written, and both the Matthew and Luke gospels uses the Mark Gospel as a basis. Mark wasn't a disciple, but a friend and associate, perhaps even a student of a disciple, Simon. Thus much of the information in it is second hand, stories told to him. It is estimated that it was written somewhere around 35-40 years after Christ died, based on events described in the gospel itself that help establish the time line.

Matthews gospel was written approximately 50 years after Christ died, give or take. Assuming he was about the same age as Jesus, Matthew would have been in his late 70's or early 80's when it was written, events that would have occurred when he was in his late 20's or early 30's. it is thought by some that the version that is in the Bible now was actually compiled by a group of disciples of Matthew.

Lukes Gospel was written between 50 and 60 years after Christ died. He was not a first hand eyewitness to Jesus' doings, and much of what he wrote is based on Marks gospel and stories told to him by others. He was certainly educated, but again - he wrote about events he was not an eyewitness to 50 years after they happened.

Keep in mind that there was no printing press back then, and there wouldn't be for quite a long time. Every book had to be painstakingly copied, and also translated, for hundreds of years.

[Diogenes]

Oh Snap!

I just find it incredibly tedious that you have to log in and reiterate an assertion that somehow this discussion is beneath you

Nah, I just don't enable hijacking tards.

Carry on, zippy.