Bob Enyart vs.Gary DeMar Debate

[Jerry Shugart]

Didn't you know that I'm a smelly ol' 5-pointer?

No,I did not know.

I base what I said on the fact that the Lord Jesus said that the Father knew when the Son would return.

Since the Father knew the day and the hour He therefore knew that the Son would not return in the first century.Therefore:

It is inconceivable that God did not know that the nation of Israel would reject the promised Messiah before it happened.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I am saying that the Father knew the day and hour when the Lord Jesus would return.

This part I agree the passage says....

He therefore knew that the generation then living would not remain alive to see that return.

That's where you step beyond and make it into a bad argument. Another method of reading the passage could be that God knew when it would happen according to plan, but that the plan had to be changed. So then God's knowledge would change along with the plans. This fits with the passage as well as does your interpretation.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is inconceivable that God did not know that the nation of Israel would reject the promised Messiah before it happened.

"inconceivable"?

Maybe for you but not for me.

God was holding out hope for Israel just as He had done in the past.

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?
​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's where you step beyond and make it into a bad argument. Another method of reading the passage could be that God knew when it would happen according to plan, but that the plan had to be changed.

It is you who are making a bad argument. The words of the Lord Jesus do not say that the Father knew the day and the hour "according to plan".

He says the the Father knows the day and the hour.PERIOD.

So then God's knowledge would change along with the plans. This fits with the passage as well as does your interpretation.

So you are saying that He knew the day and the hour. But then when the nation of Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom then the Father's knowledge on the day and hour changed.

But that would mean that when the Lord Jesus spoke these words the Father really did not know the day and the hour:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God was holding out hope for Israel just as He had done in the past.

Knight,if that is true then what is the meaning of the "Parable of the Marriage Feast"?

In His parables the Lord Jesus taught His disciples that everything relating to the kingdom would be postponed but not suspended. His disciples then learned that there was an “age” that was hidden in the prophecies and another advent at its close. One of the parables is the “Parable of the Marriage Feast”:

“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding;and they would not come” (Mt.22:2-3).

The Lord was speaking in parable in regard to the fact that the nation of Israel (“them that were bidden to the wedding”) would not accept Him as the Messiah. This was fulfilled when they crucified Him. But while He was on the Cross the nation received a repreive when He asked the Father to “forgive them for they know not what they do”(Lk.23:34).

The nation was to receive another chance to receive Him as their King. On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter told the nation that they had crucified Him “through ignorance” (Acts3:17), and then told them that if they would receive Him now that He would be sent back to earth to usher in the “times of refreshing” and “times of restitution of all things” (Acts3:19-21).

The parable of the Marriage Feast revealed that even after the second invitation the Jews would still not receive the Promised Messiah:

“And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner… come unto the marriage. But they made light of it…And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them” (Mt.22:3-6).

Shortly after the invited guests were bidden by the Apostles to receive the kingdom the Jews “laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison” (Acts5:18). In response to the preaching of Spirit filled Stephen the Jews “cast him out of the city, and stoned him” until he died (Acts7:58,60).

According to prophecy Israel was to be the “light of the world” (Mt.5:14).But since that nation rejected their promised Messiah the promises to Israel have been postponed until the “fullness of the Gentiles of the Gentiles be come in” (Ro.11:25).

Let us now continue with the parable of the Marriage Feast: “Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage” (Mt.22:8,9).

At the time when Stephen was stoned to death Saul (Paul) was standing by and consenting unto that murder (Acts8:1). Paul had been the leader of the persecution against the early church (Acts8:3;Gal.1:13), but now the Lord temporarily sets aside the prophesised program and reaches down to save him in order to make him the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Ro.11:13;Acts26:15-18). Later he says the following to the Jews:

“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts13:46).

Continuing the parable: “Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests” (Mt.22:9,10).

The “invitation” that went out to the whole world through Paul is “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Ro.16:25).

According to prophecy it was to be the nation of Israel that was to send salvation and blessings to the Gentiles. However, because that nation would not accept salvation through the Lord Jesus they would not be permitted to keep it from the Gentiles. The Lord temporarily abandoned His prophesised program and ushered in a program that had been kept secret, a program where salvation was offered to all entirely apart from Israel.

Knight,if this parable is not showing that the Lord knew that the nation of Israel would not come to Christ then what is it about?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Clete]

It is inconceivable that God did not know that the nation of Israel would reject the promised Messiah before it happened.

How so?

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
6 I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it.”
7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I just noticed that Knight beat me to the punch on this point! Great minds think alike! :thumb:

 

[Clete]

Knight,if that is true then what is the meaning of the "Parable of the Marriage Feast"?

Are you suggesting that it is our position that God was surprised by Israel's rejection?

If so, you are mistaken. If not then your question makes no sense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ApologeticJedi]

He says the the Father knows the day and the hour.PERIOD.

I agree with that. But what you want to add is that therefore the day and the hour are not changeable, but the text is silent on that topic.

But that would mean that when the Lord Jesus spoke these words the Father really did not know the day and the hour:

Not at all. God knew the day and the hour. Nothing had changed plans at that point. Only later, after Jesus rose and the Jewish people still rejected did God decide to change the plan. And, after all, Jesus had always warned that the plan may change when he said that the time will be shortened. So even with God's knowledge of the day and hour, He went in knowing that God's mercy will assuredly act before the hard date (as the term "shortening" can only be measured against a hard and literal date and time).

Incidently, Jesus also warned that the plan may change in the parable of the Fig Tree.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you suggesting that it is our position that God was surprised by Israel's rejection?

If so, you are mistaken. If not then your question makes no sense.

Here are your own words,Clete:

God expected, or at the very least hoped that Israel would repent and accept their risen Messiah and prophesied accordingly.

You say that God EXPECTED that Israel would repent. So according to you since that nation did not repent then the Lord would be surprised.

But now you are claiming that it is your position that God was not surprised by Israel's rejection of the Messiah!

Of course I will not expect you too be able to use your "reason" so that you can understand this. You will say that even though the Lord expected Israel to repent He was not surprised when there was no repentance. After all,Clete is never wrong.

Here is what the Scriptures say about Paul when he preached Christ in the synagogues:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).

For those who are able to use their "reason" I will use the Scriptures to show that the Father would not have told the generation then living that the Son of Man would return while they remained alive.

This excercise in "reason" is for those with a dispensation understanding of the Scriptures. The folllowing event has not yet happened:

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

This event will happen only once, and it will happen in the future. For the sake of argument I will arbitrarily assign a date for His return, say at 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

Now before the crucifixion and before the kingdom was offered to Israel the Lord Jesus said the following:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

So at the time when the Lord Jesus said those words the Father KNEW that the Son would not return until 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

That being said and understood then it is not "reasonable" to suppose that the Father, Who cannot lie, would tell the generation then living that they would remain alive to see the Son of Man returning to earth. He would not tell them that because He would know that it was not true.

It is that simple but there are those who cannot "reason" with their brains and they continue to insist that the Father was telling the generation then living that they would remain alive at the return of the Son of Man.

These people prove that the following words of Sir Robert Anderson are absolutely correct:

“In no other sphere save that of religion do men of intelligence and culture willingly subject their minds to delusions. The ‘historic Church’ once tried to compel belief that this planet was the fixed centre of the solar system; but who believes it now? Men cannot be made to believe that water runs uphill, or that five and five make anything but ten. In no other sphere can they be induced to stultify reason and common sense. But in religion there seems to be no limit to their credulity” (Anderson,The Bible or the Church?, p.61).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[ApologeticJedi]

So at the time when the Lord Jesus said those words the Father KNEW that the Son would not return until 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

It comes down to this:

1) Jesus said that he would return in his time.
2) God did not return in the time of Jesus.

The conclusions from this are these:

1) We are mistaken about Jesus saying that he would return in their lifetime (your position).
2) We are mistaken about Jesus not returning (Gary DeMar's position).
3) Both are true (my position).

You dismiss the obvious passages that prove that Jesus was talking about coming in their lifetime because of your preconceived notion that God couldn't say something was going to happen and then it not happen.

Gary DeMar tortuously tries to defend the idea that Jesus came in their lieftime for the same bad misconception, the idea that God couldn't say something was going to happen and then it not.

My point is that God, obviously here, but also in several other examples, says what will happen and it doesn't come to pass for certain reasons.

 

[Clete]

Here are your own words,Clete:

You say that God EXPECTED that Israel would repent. So according to you since that nation did not repent then the Lord would be surprised.

You're stupid.

But now you are claiming that it is your position that God was not surprised by Israel's rejection of the Messiah!

Of course He was not surprised. The only reason the plan was still on track to be fulfilled in the first place was for Abraham's sake. The rejection of the risen Messiah was simply the last straw.

Of course I will not expect you too be able to use your "reason" so that you can understand this.

You're both stupid and an outrageous liar. :nono:

You will say that even though the Lord expected Israel to repent He was not surprised when there was no repentance.

This is exactly right. You make this comment as though this exact same thing hasn't happened to you a thousand times. You're so stupid its mind boggling!

This is getting very boring. :yawn:

After all,Clete is never wrong.

As the sticker on the back window of my truck says, "I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!" Get used to it or present at least some sort of valid argument against my position.

Here is what the Scriptures say about Paul when he preached Christ in the synagogues:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).

For those who are able to use their "reason" I will use the Scriptures to show that the Father would not have told the generation then living that the Son of Man would return while they remained alive.

This excercise in "reason" is for those with a dispensation understanding of the Scriptures. The folllowing event has not yet happened:

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

This event will happen only once, and it will happen in the future. For the sake of argument I will arbitrarily assign a date for His return, say at 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

Now before the crucifixion and before the kingdom was offered to Israel the Lord Jesus said the following:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

So at the time when the Lord Jesus said those words the Father KNEW that the Son would not return until 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

That isn't what the text says Jerry, as has been demonstrated several times already.
You do understand that merely repeating your position after it has been refuted doesn't mean that it has to be refuted again, right? I mean, after all, you are the one who brought up "reason" and all.

That being said and understood then it is not "reasonable" to suppose that the Father, Who cannot lie, would tell the generation then living that they would remain alive to see the Son of Man returning to earth. He would not tell them that because He would know that it was not true.

If His knowledge was of the type you suggest then this conclusion would be a valid one. The problem you have is that Jesus explicitly stated what you are here denying. How is it that your interpretation of this event, which turns the plain meaning of the text on its ear in order to maintain your theology, superior to one that preserves the plain meaning of the text while still providing a completely rational and Biblically consistent explanation of why God's (Jesus') words did not come to pass?

In other words, in order for you to understand Jesus' prophecy you have to come at it from a particular theological perspective, which ends up making the passage mean something other that what it seems to mean while I only have to read Jeremiah 18 in order to be able to take Jesus completely at His word. Your interpretation is subjective while mine maintains total objectivity by both the use of plain reason and the preservation of the plain meaning of the text of Scripture.

It is that simple but there are those who cannot "reason" with their brains and they continue to insist that the Father was telling the generation then living that they would remain alive at the return of the Son of Man.

That is precisely what Jesus said would happen Jerry. You've quoted the passage numerous times yourself.

These people prove that the following words of Sir Robert Anderson are absolutely correct:

“In no other sphere save that of religion do men of intelligence and culture willingly subject their minds to delusions. The ‘historic Church’ once tried to compel belief that this planet was the fixed centre of the solar system; but who believes it now? Men cannot be made to believe that water runs uphill, or that five and five make anything but ten. In no other sphere can they be induced to stultify reason and common sense. But in religion there seems to be no limit to their credulity” (Anderson,The Bible or the Church?, p.61).

If anyone here proves those words true, it's you Jerry!

I have a question for you Jerry.

How does a person know that their theology is correct? Virtually everyone you meet has a different theology. There's Baptists, Pentecostals, The Church of Christ, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, Dispensationalists, Covenantalists, etc, etc. And each of such categories all have several mutually incompatible subcategories as well. How do you know that you got it right?

I have a specific answer to that question, do you? If so, perhaps we can drop this boring conversation that seems prone to pulling a never ending steam of lies out of you like seeds from a watermelon and instead discuss who's answer is superior and why.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete,you quoted me saying the following:

For those who are able to use their "reason" I will use the Scriptures to show that the Father would not have told the generation then living that the Son of Man would return while they remained alive.

This excercise in "reason" is for those with a dispensation understanding of the Scriptures. The folllowing event has not yet happened:

"...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

This event will happen only once, and it will happen in the future. For the sake of argument I will arbitrarily assign a date for His return, say at 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

Now before the crucifixion and before the kingdom was offered to Israel the Lord Jesus said the following:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

So at the time when the Lord Jesus said those words the Father KNEW that the Son would not return until 7 o'clock P.M. on March 25, 2025.

And here is the best you could say in answer:

That isn't what the text says Jerry, as has been demonstrated several times already.

You have NOT demonstrated several times already that that isn't what the text says.

That idea only exists in you little mind. If you could show what I said is not true then you would say exactly why I am wrong. But you do no such thing. You just make a blanket statement that is not supported by anything other than your assertion.

You have no answer!

And since you have no answer you attempt to assassinate my character in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answer.

If His knowledge was of the type you suggest then this conclusion would be a valid one. The problem you have is that Jesus explicitly stated what you are here denying.

I say that His knowledge was EXACTLY the same knowledge that the Lord Jesus said that He had--that the Father knew the day and hour when the Son would return. You say that I am denying what the Lord Jesus explicitly stated:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

It is you who denies what the Lord Jsus states in that verse. According to you the Father did not even know if Israel would repent. You said that the Father expected and hoped that they would but He did not know. If He did not know then how could He know the day and time when the Son would return?

Your interpretation is subjective while mine maintains total objectivity by both the use of plain reason and the preservation of the plain meaning of the text of Scripture.

In order for anyone to believe your interpreation they must throw their reason to the wind and abandon their common sense.

Just because you are able to do that don't expect others to do the same.

How does a person know that their theology is correct?

First of all one has to BELIEVE what the Scriptures say. For instance,you SAY that you believe the following words spoken by the Lord Jesus:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

You say that you believe that the Father knows the day and the hour of the Son's return, but then you turn around and say that the Father did not even know if the nation of Israel would accept the offer of the King and the Kingdom. You say that He expected them to accept the offer and hoped that they would, but He really did not know if they would.

Despite the fact that the return of the Son at that time depended on Israel's accepting the kingdom you give lip service to the words that the Father KNEW the day and hour when the Son would return. But then you deny it with your ridiculous argument.

We are supposed to believe that the Father knew the day and the hour of the Son's return but He did not even know if Israel would repent so that He could send the Son back to them!!!

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously,Clete? You are an embarrassment to all Christianity.

As the sticker on the back window of my truck says, "I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!" Get used to it or present at least some sort of valid argument against my position.

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit you right between the eyes.

 

[Clete]

Good bye Jerry.

I'm through repeating myself. Don't forget to accuse me of running and hiding!


:wave2:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Good bye Jerry.

I'm through repeating myself. Don't forget to accuse me of running and hiding!

Clete,I know that you keep repeating yourself. However, you have not solved the riddle of your teaching.

According to Peter the Father's sending back of the Son depended on whether or not the nation of Israel would repent or not:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts3:19-20).

If the Father did not know whether or not Israel would repent then He couldn't know the "day and the hour" when the Son would return. And you say that the Father did not know whether or not Israel would repent:

God expected, or at the very least hoped that Israel would repent and accept their risen Messiah and prophesied accordingly.

Before this offer of the kingdom was made the Son said that the Father knew the "day and the hour" when the Son would return:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

So according to your riddle the Father did not know whether or not He would be sending back the Son to the generation then living but at the same time He knew the "day and hour" when it would happen.

That makes no sense and you have not answered your riddle yet because you just keep repeating the same old things over and over.

Now you are leaving this thread without ever solving your riddle.

Bye!

 

[Lon]

Here is a suggested scenario:


Jesus: No man knows but my Father (Mt 24)

Jesus: This generations shall not pass

Events: Jesus dies, is buried and raises.

Jesus: (to Mary) "Do not touch me for I haven't ascended to my Father, but tell the disciples."

Jesus: (to Thomas) "Touch me."

Question: Why could Mary not touch but Thomas could?

Answer: Jesus ascended and then "descended from the clouds" in the interim. Acts 2 is the final departure.

Conclusion: This generation indeed did not pass away before seeing that which was prophecied.

 

[patman]

Here is a suggested scenario:


Jesus: No man knows but my Father (Mt 24)

Jesus: This generations shall not pass

Events: Jesus dies, is buried and raises.

Jesus: (to Mary) "Do not touch me for I haven't ascended to my Father, but tell the disciples."

Jesus: (to Thomas) "Touch me."

Question: Why could Mary not touch but Thomas could?

Answer: Jesus ascended and then "descended from the clouds" in the interim. Acts 2 is the final departure.

Conclusion: This generation indeed did not pass away before seeing that which was prophecied.

This generation shall not pass till........... what?

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.”

Mark 9:1
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

Luke 9:27
But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

Jesus was speaking to his apostles... he said he speaks plainly to them, so there aren't any double meanings here. The kingdom of God is the same kingdom Israel had always been waiting for.

In Daniel, the Kingdom is prophesied to happen right after the roman empire.

Daniel 2
43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

The clay/iron never happened. God changed things before it could. The head of Gold was Babylon. The Chest of Silver was Persia, and the belly-legs of bronze was Greece, and the lower legs of iron was Rome. Each metal can be identified with the era... example Iron was very important and key to rome. Babylon favored Gold more than the others. But the 10 kingdoms never happened, it was going to happen right after Jesus' death, right after the Roman empire. Not 2000 years later. The other kingdoms in the statue rolled right on top of each other, so should have the last one. But it didn't.

But as it turns out, now the 10 kingdoms (ten toes) will happen later. So will the kingdom refereed to by Christ.

The prophecy was for hundreds of years planned to happen when Jesus said it would, in the apostles generation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Luke 9:27
But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

“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” (Mt.16:27-28).

The words of Peter in his first epistle refers to this “coming”, and it happened at the “transfiguration” on the holy mount:

“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” (2Pet.1:16-18).

Peter says that he was was an eyewitness of His “majesty”. The word “majesty” is translated from the Greek word “megaleiotes” and that word means “greatness, magnificence…of the visible splendor of the divine majesty as it appeared in the transfiguration of Christ, 2 Peter i.16” (“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

Therefore by the context of the words “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” we know that this “coming” is in regard to His appearing at the transfiguration on the holy mount.

In each gospel that records the words of the Lord Jesus saying that some of His Apostles will see Him in the kingdom the events of the “transfiguration” immediately follow. On the holy mount “His face did shine like the sun, and His rainment was as white as the light” (Mt.17:2).

The event at the transfiguration fulfilled the words of the Lord Jesus when He said that some of His Apostles would “not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Answer: Jesus ascended and then "descended from the clouds" in the interim. Acts 2 is the final departure.

Conclusion: This generation indeed did not pass away before seeing that which was prophecied.

I am not aware of anyone who "saw" Him "descend from the clouds".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[patman]

“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” (Mt.16:27-28).

The words of Peter in his first epistle refers to this “coming”, and it happened at the “transfiguration” on the holy mount:

“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” (2Pet.1:16-18).

Peter says that he was was an eyewitness of His “majesty”. The word “majesty” is translated from the Greek word “megaleiotes” and that word means “greatness, magnificence…of the visible splendor of the divine majesty as it appeared in the transfiguration of Christ, 2 Peter i.16” (“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

Therefore by the context of the words “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” we know that this “coming” is in regard to His appearing at the transfiguration on the holy mount.

In each gospel that records the words of the Lord Jesus saying that some of His Apostles will see Him in the kingdom the events of the “transfiguration” immediately follow. On the holy mount “His face did shine like the sun, and His rainment was as white as the light” (Mt.17:2).

The event at the transfiguration fulfilled the words of the Lord Jesus when He said that some of His Apostles would “not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”.

In His grace,--Jerry

The transfiguration was not the kingdom of God he promised the Israelites for thousands of years. Jesus did not come in his kingdom.

I find this interesting tho. It seems you say Jesus was in his full glory while on earth... So his full glory would retain all supposed future knowledge, would it not?? So at this point, Jesus would have known all future events, according to the SV.... So why would Jesus not know the day or the hour?? He had transfigured, did he forget everything again?

I thought the standard answer for Jesus not knowing the day or the hour was that Jesus only put it aside until after the cross... it seems he, tho, by the transfiguration that Jesus is God in the flesh always,,,, only he can show that side of him whenever he wishes... he always would know in other words, had there been something to know.

 

[Lon]

I understand where you both are coming from.

Here are a few considerations:

1) all other generations did pass before seeing His kingdom. This is the first generation where being absent from the body was being present with the Lord.

This generation did see Him go to the clouds.

This generation did see His messianic fulfillment.