a look at Jeremiah 7:21-8:3

[Clete]

This is demonstrably not true:
[Mar 8:34 KJV] 34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
That verse is a mere 5 verses earlier than Mark 9:1, and is the lead-in to it, despite being in the previous chapter. And that invitation would have made little sense if only the 12 were in view, who were already committed to following Christ no matter the consequences (not that they were able to follow through very well, but they were personally committed).

My comments were based on the passage in Matthew which reads....

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 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.​

​

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”​

And so, regardless of who all was present, it seems His comments were being made "to His disciples" and not to an at large crowd of Jews where believers and unbelievers were mixed together.

Regardless, there isn't any indication whatsoever that Jesus was talking in any sort of veiled language here.

I'm not sure we've reached that point in our dialog, since that's what the disagreement is about. Your assuming that Jesus meant His second coming in vs 28 (as He does in vs 27), but you haven't shown that. Remember He was crowned King (crown of thorns) and labeled as King of the Jews (placard on the cross), and He defeated the enemy (death) to gain the glory and reign.

So now you're suggesting that Christ's "coming in His Kingdom" is referring to events that occurred prior to His death? How could that possibly make any sense whatsoever?

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before several weeks ago.”

That's clearly wrong.

And, in regards to having not shown that these passages are talking of His second coming, it is not my burden to do so. The plain reading of the text is that this is what He's talking about, as the quotes I've presented clearly show. If you are suggesting that they are not, then the burden is on you to show that, which was the point of my bringing up the prophesy in the first place.

If their repentance was necessary, then how was it according to plan up until that time? Was God causing their wickedness??

Huh?

This question makes no sense to me whatsoever.

How many times is Jesus' lamenting over Israel's lack of faith recorded for us in the gospels? Do you think that God is required to give Israel a kingdom, even if they hate the King?

And what on Earth could I possibly have said that would lead anyone to ask me whether I thought that God was causing their wickedness?

But we can see that Jesus thought there were obvious concerns about the future of the kingdom, like here:
[Mat 21:41 KJV] 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

The KJV is worthless. I really just don't like it very much at all. That verse makes no sense to me at all and I can see no relation between it and the subject of Israel's future kingdom.

This was before He was crucified, and it seems like His intent, if they say, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance," was that they would be destroyed and the vineyard given to others (Gentiles?). Remember this is a parable about the "kingdom", after His authority (as the son of the vineyard owner) was questioned, after He had been hailed as the Messiah, the son of David. So if He already knows that the spiritual leaders are going to reject Him and murder Him, and that because of that they would be destroyed and the vineyard given to someone else, why would He prophesy that the Kingdom was imminent...unless it's not talking about the physical kingdom?

Because He doesn't already know that they'll reject Him. They were rejecting Him at the time but remember the parable of the Fig Tree where the idea of cutting down the tree was floated but then it was decided to fertilize it and give it another year? That parable I believe points to the giving of the Holy Spirit which was a variable that was not yet fully in play in Matthew 21. It wasn't until Stephen presented what the scripture calls "irresistible wisdom" through the Spirit and the leaders of Israel rejected that wisdom to the point of executing Stephen for blasphemy that we see Christ standing (a posture of judgement, by the way) and God turning to the Gentiles with a new gospel through Paul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Derf]

My comments were based on the passage in Matthew which reads....

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 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.​

​

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”​

And so, regardless of who all was present, it seems His comments were being made "to His disciples" and not to an at large crowd of Jews where believers and unbelievers were mixed together.

I never said it was unbelievers and believers mixed together. But you said it was only the twelve.

Regardless, there isn't any indication whatsoever that Jesus was talking in any sort of veiled language here.


So now you're suggesting that Christ's "coming in His Kingdom" is referring to events that occurred prior to His death? How could that possibly make any sense whatsoever?

Not just events that occurred prior to His death, but also some of those. Plus the event of His death, plus the resurrection (defeat of the kingdom's greatest enemy), plus the filling of the Holy Spirit, plus the welcoming in of Gentiles to the Kingdom as fellow heirs.
[Eph 3:6 NKJV] 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
[1Co 6:9 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[Gal 5:21 KJV] 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before several weeks ago.”

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you now saying that the time Jesus was predicted was before He said the predictive words? That's odd. Maybe I misunderstood you.

That's clearly wrong.

And, in regards to having not shown that these passages are talking of His second coming, it is not my burden to do so. The plain reading of the text is that this is what He's talking about, as the quotes I've presented clearly show. If you are suggesting that they are not, then the burden is on you to show that, which was the point of my bringing up the prophesy in the first place.

Always the "plain reading of the text". Such plain reading is exactly why I'm making these statements. The plain reading is that Jesus knew He was being rejected, He knew the possibility of the continued rejection, and to prophecy that it would all go away is, well, foolish.

Huh?

This question makes no sense to me whatsoever.

How many times is Jesus' lamenting over Israel's lack of faith recorded for us in the gospels? Do you think that God is required to give Israel a kingdom, even if they hate the King?

Therefore, why would He then predict, if He knew that Israel was hating the King, that there would be no hiccup in the plan for Him to return. This is the incongruity of you position.

And what on Earth could I possibly have said that would lead anyone to ask me whether I thought that God was causing their wickedness?


The KJV is worthless. I really just don't like it very much at all. That verse makes no sense to me at all and I can see no relation between it and the subject of Israel's future kingdom.

You're welcome to offer a different version and comment on it. I don't see any problem with the KJV's "plain reading of the text." Do you?

Because He doesn't already know that they'll reject Him.

But He certainly had some idea that they might reject Him. The statement was to those who loved Him and were not rejecting Him, but the decision whether to come back bodily from Heaven was not based on those few, according to you.

They were rejecting Him at the time

As I said...if they were rejecting Him at the time, why not offer a less specific prophecy, one that could be viewed in more than one way, perhaps.

but remember the parable of the Fig Tree where the idea of cutting down the tree was floated but then it was decided to fertilize it and give it another year? That parable I believe points to the giving of the Holy Spirit which was a variable that was not yet fully in play in Matthew 21. It wasn't until Stephen presented what the scripture calls "irresistible wisdom" through the Spirit and the leaders of Israel rejected that wisdom to the point of executing Stephen for blasphemy that we see Christ standing (a posture of judgement, by the way) and God turning to the Gentiles with a new gospel through Paul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

All of which screams, "Jesus knew there might be a problem, but He ignored it, thinking it would go away, and He would return on schedule!" This is ludicrous to suggest He had no insight into the potential failing of His people Israel, especially as you have pointed out, that the failing was already in full bloom.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you now saying that the time Jesus was predicted was before He said the predictive words? That's odd. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Clete was mocking the idea that Jesus was prophesying about something that happened several weeks ago. That's why the sentence was in quotes, and why he said "That's clearly wrong."

Therefore, why would He then predict, if He knew that Israel was hating the King, that there would be no hiccup in the plan for Him to return. This is the incongruity of you position.

But He certainly had some idea that they might reject Him. The statement was to those who loved Him and were not rejecting Him, but the decision whether to come back bodily from Heaven was not based on those few, according to you.

God hopes to accomplish His will, but often men get in the way.

Opentheism.org/verses
Categories 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 31, are all relevant here.

God indicates the future is uncertain.
God says He repents and changes His mind and His actions.
God expects that something will happen that doesn’t happen.
God wants to see what men will do.
God Does Not Have All Present Knowledge.
God indicates certain prophecies will go unfulfilled, i.e., God says what will happen but then says that it won’t happen.
God gives men choices and options and recognizes that they can choose among them.
God more explicitly says He does not know what will happen.
God says He will no longer do something He said He would do.
The Bible shows certain prophecies were not fulfilled as given.

 

[Clete]

I never said it was unbelievers and believers mixed together.

Niether did I.

But you said it was only the twelve.

As indicated by Matthew's gospel.

Not just events that occurred prior to His death, but also some of those. Plus the event of His death, plus the resurrection (defeat of the kingdom's greatest enemy), plus the filling of the Holy Spirit, plus the welcoming in of Gentiles to the Kingdom as fellow heirs.
[Eph 3:6 NKJV] 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
[1Co 6:9 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[Gal 5:21 KJV] 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm sorry, Derf but there just isn't any way that Jesus was referring to anything other than His second coming. That's the sense you get from simply reading the text and there isn't anything other than someone's doctrine that would necessitate any other understanding of the passage.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you now saying that the time Jesus was predicted was before He said the predictive words? That's odd. Maybe I misunderstood you.

See JR's post above.

Always the "plain reading of the text".

Yes, indeed! Unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise.

Such plain reading is exactly why I'm making these statements.

Impossible.

The plain reading is that Jesus knew He was being rejected, He knew the possibility of the continued rejection, and to prophecy that it would all go away is, well, foolish.

This is you reading doctrine into the text. The proof is that the plain reading reads as foolishness to you.

Therefore, why would He then predict, if He knew that Israel was hating the King, that there would be no hiccup in the plan for Him to return. This is the incongruity of you position.

Asked and answered. He didn't know. That's just precisely the entire point. His return was part of the long prophesied plan and His "some standing here" prophesy was in keeping with that plan which to that point had not yet been abandoned in the HOPES that the giving of the Holy Spirit would create repentance on the part of the nation of Israel. It did not do so and so Jesus' prophesy was not fulfilled and the rest of Israel's prophetic programed was put on hold, "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".

You're welcome to offer a different version and comment on it. I don't see any problem with the KJV's "plain reading of the text." Do you?

The KJV is anitquated and nearly worthless by comparison of several modern translations, the NKJV in particular. In fact, the KJV is so antiquated that I consider modern translations as poor as the NIV to be of more value to the average person.

But He certainly had some idea that they might reject Him.

Quite so! He had to talk the Father into waiting for a year after He "fertilized" the Fig Tree before cutting it down! I'm not saying that Jesus was surprised but merely that He was being consistent with Israel's prophetic program which was still in place and on track to be fulfilled as prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.

The statement was to those who loved Him and were not rejecting Him, but the decision whether to come back bodily from Heaven was not based on those few, according to you.

Quite so. The decision to cut off Israel was precipitated by the leaders of Israel not merely rejecting Stephen's "irresistible wisdom" but stoning him to death for having presented it. It was at the event of Steven's death that we see Christ standing (a posture of judgment) and a certain Benjamite named Saul is introduced onto the scene.

As I said...if they were rejecting Him at the time, why not offer a less specific prophecy, one that could be viewed in more than one way, perhaps.

Because Israel's prophetic program was already in place from centuries before and Jesus was optimistic about the effects of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 13:6-9)

All of which screams, "Jesus knew there might be a problem, but He ignored it, thinking it would go away, and He would return on schedule!" This is ludicrous to suggest He had no insight into the potential failing of His people Israel, especially as you have pointed out, that the failing was already in full bloom.

Again, I've never suggested that Jesus had no such insight but merely that He was being consistent with the program that His Father had in place for Israel, which had not yet been stopped.

 

[Derf]

Niether did I.


As indicated by Matthew's gospel.


I'm sorry, Derf but there just isn't any way that Jesus was referring to anything other than His second coming. That's the sense you get from simply reading the text and there isn't anything other than someone's doctrine that would necessitate any other understanding of the passage.

I don't have time to give the positive answer to your comment justice, but I'll try at some point in the future. Negative answer follows.

See JR's post above.


Yes, indeed! Unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise.


Impossible.


This is you reading doctrine into the text. The proof is that the plain reading reads as foolishness to you.


Asked and answered. He didn't know. That's just precisely the entire point. His return was part of the long prophesied plan and His "some standing here" prophesy was in keeping with that plan which to that point had not yet been abandoned in the HOPES that the giving of the Holy Spirit would create repentance on the part of the nation of Israel. It did not do so and so Jesus' prophesied was not fulfilled and the rest of Israel's prophetic programed was put on hold, "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".


The KJV is anitquated and nearly worthless by comparison of several modern translations, the NKJV in particular. In fact, the KJV is so antiquated that I consider modern translations as poor as the NIV to be of more value to the average person.

Ok, but you haven't offered any with a better reading that seems to say anything different.

Quite so! He had to talk the Father into waiting for a year after He "fertilized" the Fig Tree before cutting it down! I'm not saying that Jesus was surprised but merely that He was being consistent with Israel's prophetic program which was still in place and on track to be fulfilled as prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.


Quite so. The decision to cut off Israel was precipitated by the leaders of Israel not merely rejecting Stephen's "irresistible wisdom" but stoning him to death for having presented it. It was at the event of Steven's death that we see Christ standing (a posture of judgment) and a certain Benjamite named Saul in introduced onto the scene.

Stephen's death? Just one death was needed to derail the prophetic timeline?
Then why would Jesus give these warnings
Matthew 23:34 KJV — Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

"Some of them" is more than "one of them". But you're saying it only took one. Jesus EXPECTED more deaths in this supposed prophetic program where only one was necessary to derail it. These are inconsistencies in your plain reading of the text.

Because Israel's prophetic program was already in place from centuries before and Jesus was optimistic about the effects of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 13:6-9)

See here instead:
Matthew 23:39 KJV — For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

This is a negative prophecy that offers relief from the bad outcome, when they repent, not at some specified time. In other words, Jesus expected them to reject Him, and they wouldn't receive the benefits of His presence until, at some uncertain time, they accepted Him (and His apostles). The negative prophecy is appropriately caveated. God doesn't always caveat His prophecies, but He did this one, in such a way that your implicit caveat doesn't really allow for.

Again, I've never suggested that Jesus had no such insight but merely that He was being consistent with the program that His Father had in place for Israel, which had not yet been stopped.

I fail to see why God in the flesh would feel bound to deliver prophetic promises, without necessary caveats, that He knew were likely to go unfulfilled.

One of the main points of Open Theism is that at whatever instant God decides to show mercy or wrath, He can do it. He doesn't have to follow the prophetic program in those cases.

This is why the plain reading of the text is not the one you've arrived at. The plain reading must take the full context into account.

 

[Clete]

I don't have time to give the positive answer to your comment justice, but I'll try at some point in the future. Negative answer follows.

Ok, but you haven't offered any with a better reading that seems to say anything different.

I'm not saying that any of them say anything different. I'm saying that you can read and understand practically any other translation more easily. If your goal is to communicate what the bible says, you'll use something other that a 400+ year old translation that uses a form of English that no one speaks any longer.

Stephen's death? Just one death was needed to derail the prophetic timeline?

God is not a respecter of persons. It wasn't Stephen that was the issue, it was his Holy Spirit inspired "irresistible wisdom" that they rejected.

Luke 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.​

​

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.​

​

Jeremiah 5:14 Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts:​

“Because you speak this word,​

Behold, I will make My words in your mouth fire,​

And this people wood,​

And it shall devour them.​

Then why would Jesus give these warnings
Matthew 23:34 KJV — Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

"Some of them" is more than "one of them". But you're saying it only took one. Jesus EXPECTED more deaths in this supposed prophetic program where only one was necessary to derail it. These are inconsistencies in your plain reading of the text.

Again, and as always, it isn't the preacher(s), its the sermon.

See here instead:
Matthew 23:39 KJV — For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Once again, if it is your desire to communicate the bible's teaching, you WILL use something other than a version of the bible that is translated into a form of English that no one speaks.

This is a negative prophecy that offers relief from the bad outcome, when they repent, not at some specified time. In other words, Jesus expected them to reject Him, and they wouldn't receive the benefits of His presence until, at some uncertain time, they accepted Him (and His apostles). The negative prophecy is appropriately caveated. God doesn't always caveat His prophecies, but He did this one, in such a way that your implicit caveat doesn't really allow for.

I have no doubt that Jesus expected them to reject Him. They always had (see Nehemiah 9, which reads very similar to Stephen's sermon, by the way). And Jesus had just discussed the cutting down of the unfruitful fig tree and He had spent three years looking for faith in Israel and hadn't found it (in large quantity), etc, etc, etc.

I guess I don't understand your point.

I fail to see why God in the flesh would feel bound to deliver prophetic promises, without necessary caveats, that He knew were likely to go unfulfilled.

He has always done so. Do you suppose the God was surprised by Israel's rebellion in the desert after having been rescued from Egypt?

When has Israel ever responded to God in faith except when they were being enslaved by enemy nations? NEVER! And yet, He still makes prophecies and promises and blesses them. One might start to think that it might be about something else other than Israel as a nation state.

One of the main points of Open Theism is that at whatever instant God decides to show mercy or wrath, He can do it. He doesn't have to follow the prophetic program in those cases.

That definitely IS NOT a "main point" of Open Theism. If God prophesies something then it IS going to come to pass unless there's very good reason for it not to do so that is in keeping with His righteous character and with what God has previously warned, as in the case of Jeremiah 18.

God is a Man of His word!

This is why the plain reading of the text is not the one you've arrived at.

I've "arrived" at nothing. The passage is referring to His second coming.

The plain reading must take the full context into account.

Precisely!

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 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 8:34 When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” 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 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. 25 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? 26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.”​

​

All three passages are essentially the same. There is no question at all that He is talking about Judgement Day and His second coming. The text itself supports nothing else. There are only doctrinal reasons to think otherwise.

 

[Derf]

I'm not saying that any of them say anything different. I'm saying that you can read and understand practically any other translation more easily. If your goal is to communicate what the bible says, you'll use something other that a 400+ year old translation that uses a form of English that no one speaks any longer.


God is not a respecter of persons. It wasn't Stephen that was the issue, it was his Holy Spirit inspired "irresistible wisdom" that they rejected.

So you're suggesting a large percentage of the original disciples might be killed before anyone comes up with a sermon that is good enough to kick off plan B? But that didn't happen.

Luke 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.​

​

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.​

​

Jeremiah 5:14 Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts:​

“Because you speak this word,​

Behold, I will make My words in your mouth fire,​

And this people wood,​

And it shall devour them.​

Again, and as always, it isn't the preacher(s), its the sermon.


Once again, if it is your desire to communicate the bible's teaching, you WILL use something other than a version of the bible that is translated into a form of English that no one speaks.


I have no doubt that Jesus expected them to reject Him. They always had (see Nehemiah 9, which reads very similar to Stephen's sermon, by the way). And Jesus had just discussed the cutting down of the unfruitful fig tree and He had spent three years looking for faith in Israel and hadn't found it (in large quantity), etc, etc, etc.

I guess I don't understand your point.


He has always done so. Do you suppose the God was surprised by Israel's rebellion in the desert after having been rescued from Egypt?

When has Israel ever responded to God in faith except when they were being enslaved by enemy nations? NEVER! And yet, He still makes prophecies and promises and blesses them. One might start to think that it might be about something else other than Israel as a nation state.


That definitely IS NOT a "main point" of Open Theism. If God prophesies something then it IS going to come to pass unless there's very good reason for it not to do so that is in keeping with His righteous character and with what God has previously warned, as in the case of Jeremiah 18.

Right, that's what I said. A main point of open theism.

God is a Man of His word!


I've "arrived" at nothing. The passage is referring to His second coming.

The passage certainly speaks of His second coming, but the question at hand is whether it only speaks of his second coming. And the reason we're still conversing about it is that it shows serious marks of a different intention.

Precisely!

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 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 8:34 When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” 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 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. 25 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? 26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.”​

​

All three passages are essentially the same. There is no question at all that He is talking about Judgement Day and His second coming. The text itself supports nothing else. There are only doctrinal reasons to think otherwise.

Of course. Doctrinal reasons like, "Jesup would never give a prophecy He Himself thought likely to not come true."

 

[Clete]

So you're suggesting a large percentage of the original disciples might be killed before anyone comes up with a sermon that is good enough to kick off plan B? But that didn't happen.

This was as stupid thing to say. Smacks of desperation, really. You're intentionally ignoring the roll of the Holy Spirit.

Right, that's what I said. A main point of open theism.

It isn't even remotely close to being a "main point" of Open Theism, especially considering the way in which you've presented it. It's the blasphemous Calvinists who believe that God can just do any old willy-nilly thing He desires regardless of the circumstances, implications, or effect it has on His character.

The passage certainly speaks of His second coming, but the question at hand is whether it only speaks of his second coming.

There is mention of Judgement Day but the point is that He isn't talking about Pentecost, the transfiguation or any other event that was only a few days away.

And the reason we're still conversing about it is that it shows serious marks of a different intention.

Intentions are irrelevant. The text isn't written in code nor is it difficult to understand for any other reason. It's extremely clear and obvious based simply and only on the words on the page.

Of course. Doctrinal reasons like, "Jesus would never give a prophecy He Himself thought likely to not come true."

A purely speculative doctrine at that!

The biblical facts are....

• Jesus did make that prophesy
• Luke 13:6-9 is in the bible
• Stephen made a Holy Spirit inspired argument with "irresistible wisdom"
• The leaders of Israel did rejected their Messiah and killed Stephen
• Saul (Paul) appears on the scene at that precise moment
• All of the apostles have died
• Jesus has not yet come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and rewarded each according to his works

 

[Derf]

This was as stupid thing to say. Smacks of desperation, really. You're intentionally ignoring the roll of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not. I'm merely discussing whether Jesus would have thought the prophetic program was a sure thing or not. And surely He would consider the roll of the Holy Spirit.

It isn't even remotely close to being a "main point" of Open Theism, especially considering the way in which you've presented it. It's the blasphemous Calvinists who believe that God can just do any old willy-nilly thing He desires regardless of the circumstances, implications, or effect it has on His character.

I don't recall writing "willy-nilly" anywhere. And if I didn't, then what you have done is set up a straw man about what I said, in order to knock it down. No point in going furhter with you in that part of the conversation, as your conduct admits of your inability to fashion a decent argument against what I actually wrote.

There is mention of Judgement Day but the point is that He isn't talking about Pentecost, the transfiguation or any other event that was only a few days away.

No, not any single event. But potentially a collection of events, possibly ending with the destruction of Jerusalem, which He prophesied, and which occurred within the lifetimes of those that were with Jesus when he spoke those words.

Intentions are irrelevant.

Jesus's intentions were irrelevant??

The text isn't written in code nor is it difficult to understand for any other reason. It's extremely clear and obvious based simply and only on the words on the page.


A purely speculative doctrine at that!

The biblical facts are....

• Jesus did make that prophesy
• Luke 13:6-9 is in the bible
• Stephen made a Holy Spirit inspired argument with "irresistible wisdom"
• The leaders of Israel did rejected their Messiah and killed Stephen
• Saul (Paul) appears on the scene at that precise moment
• All of the apostles have died
• Jesus has not yet come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and rewarded each according to his works

I take it from your post that you believe the bolded part is the definition of these three versions of what Jesus said the disciples would "see" before some of them had died:
...the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
...the kingdom of God present with power.
...the kingdom of God.

Those last two are easily dispatched, as Jesus stated clearly that:
[Luk 17:20 NKJV] ..."The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
and:
[Luk 17:21 NKJV] "nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

In other words, Jesus was telling them that "seeing" the kingdom of God is not the same as what they would see with their eyes. Here are some verses to consider:
[Mat 6:10 NKJV] Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as [it is] in heaven.

I.e., one of the things it means for the kingdom to come is that God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven, like here:​

[Act 5:16 NKJV] Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.​

[Mat 12:28 NKJV] "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I.e., one of the things it means for the kingdom to come is that demons are cast out by the Spirit of God, like here:​

[Act 5:16 NKJV] Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.​

So we can "see" that the kingdom doesn't come with normal "seeing"/observation, but by seeing something that is within His people. This is not to say that Jesus will not return bodily and set up His kingdom visibly...of course He will. But the kingdom can "come" in one way now without it coming in all ways.

 

[Clete]

I'm not. I'm merely discussing whether Jesus would have thought the prophetic program was a sure thing or not. And surely He would consider the roll of the Holy Spirit.

No prophecy God ever gives that is contingent on what regular human beings do is a "sure thing". The only prophecies that are "sure things" are those that have to do with what God has said the He is going to do Himself regardless of what any fallen man does or doesn't do. God is going to destroy the Earth with fire and create a New Earth, for example. That's a sure thing because it isn't contingent on anything other than what God Himself wants to do for His own reasons.

I don't recall writing "willy-nilly" anywhere. And if I didn't, then what you have done is set up a straw man about what I said, in order to knock it down. No point in going further with you in that part of the conversation, as your conduct admits of your inability to fashion a decent argument against what I actually wrote.

I quoted you precisely and responded to what you said. If your words need clarification that's on you, not me. What you said was "One of the main points of Open Theism is that at whatever instant God decides to show mercy or wrath, He can do it." That is not so! It is so far from being so that if it were a "main point of Open Theism" is would falsify the doctrine! God cannot simply decide on an arbitrary whim to show mercy vs wrath. That isn't who God is at all and the only people who believe otherwise are one flavor or another of Calvinist.

No, not any single event. But potentially a collection of events, possibly ending with the destruction of Jerusalem, which He prophesied, and which occurred within the lifetimes of those that were with Jesus when he spoke those words.

So now you're into Preterism, really?

Jesus's intentions were irrelevant??

Now who's constructing straw men, Derf?

Don't be a hypocrite.

I take it from your post that you believe the bolded part is the definition of these three versions of what Jesus said the disciples would "see" before some of them had died:
...the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
...the kingdom of God present with power.
...the kingdom of God.

Those last two are easily dispatched, as Jesus stated clearly that:
[Luk 17:20 NKJV] ..."The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
and:
[Luk 17:21 NKJV] "nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

In other words, Jesus was telling them that "seeing" the kingdom of God is not the same as what they would see with their eyes. Here are some verses to consider:
[Mat 6:10 NKJV] Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as [it is] in heaven.

I.e., one of the things it means for the kingdom to come is that God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven, like here:​

[Act 5:16 NKJV] Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.​

[Mat 12:28 NKJV] "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I.e., one of the things it means for the kingdom to come is that demons are cast out by the Spirit of God, like here:​

[Act 5:16 NKJV] Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.​

So we can "see" that the kingdom doesn't come with normal "seeing"/observation, but by seeing something that is within His people. This is not to say that Jesus will not return bodily and set up His kingdom visibly...of course He will. But the kingdom can "come" in one way now without it coming in all ways.

If this thinking is true then the prophesies were meaningless. In fact, they weren't prophecies at all because the "kingdom of God" had already come! As Jesus said, "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.". He didn't say there that the kingdom of God was coming or that they'd see it before they died but that it IS within them (present tense). And so, once again, this cannot be what Jesus was referring to when He's talking about some of them no dying before they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, with power and the angels to judge men according to their works.

The biblical facts are....

• Jesus did make that prophesy
• Luke 13:6-9 is in the bible
• Stephen made a Holy Spirit inspired argument with "irresistible wisdom"
• The leaders of Israel did rejected their Messiah and killed Stephen
• Saul (Paul) appears on the scene at that precise moment
• All of the apostles have died
• Jesus has not yet come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and rewarded each according to his works

 

[Derf]

No prophecy God ever gives that is contingent on what regular human beings do is a "sure thing".

Right, So would Jesus be giving that kind of prophecies in that kind of language? I say no, because He had seen the likelihood of the prophecies failing.

The only prophecies that are "sure things" are those that have to do with what God has said the He is going to do Himself regardless of what any fallen man does or doesn't do.

And that seems like what Jesus is saying--that despite His disciples being hunted down and killed by those opposed to the true King, those who were leaders of Israel, the kingdom would still come in some way.

God is going to destroy the Earth with fire and create a New Earth, for example. That's a sure thing because it isn't contingent on anything other than what God Himself wants to do for His own reasons.

Are you saying that mankind could not repent enough to keep from being destroyed?

I quoted you precisely and responded to what you said. If your words need clarification that's on you, not me. What you said was "One of the main points of Open Theism is that at whatever instant God decides to show mercy or wrath, He can do it."

Yep. Read the Jeremiah passage again. It seems you forgot what it said:
[Jer 18:7 CSB] "At one moment I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, and destroy it.
[Jer 18:8 CSB] "However, if that nation about which I have made the announcement turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the disaster I had planned to do to it.
[Jer 18:9 CSB] "At another time I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it.
[Jer 18:10 CSB] "However, if it does what is evil in my sight by not listening to me, I will relent concerning the good I had said I would do to it.

These are decisions of wrath and mercy, made at an instant in time and changed in what appears to be intants in time. Why is this controversial to you?

That is not so! It is so far from being so that if it were a "main point of Open Theism" is would falsify the doctrine! God cannot simply decide on an arbitrary whim to show mercy vs wrath. That isn't who God is at all and the only people who believe otherwise are one flavor or another of Calvinist.

I never said "arbitrary". Why do you insert it?

So now you're into Preterism, really?

You're saying that for someone to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed as part of a judgment of God means they are Preterists? That seems a broad stretch, don't you think?

Now who's constructing straw men, Derf?

You are, as shown above.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Listen to yourself for a moment, Clete.

If this thinking is true then the prophesies were meaningless. In fact, they weren't prophecies at all because the "kingdom of God" had already come! As Jesus said, "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.". He didn't say there that the kingdom of God was coming or that they'd see it before they died but that it IS within them (present tense). And so, once again, this cannot be what Jesus was referring to when He's talking about some of them no dying before they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, with power and the angels to judge men according to their works.

No, not as a single event. The kingdom coming wasn't a single event. It wasn't fully there at that time, neither was it fully there when Christ died, or even when He resurrected. It wasn't fully there at Pentecost, but all of these events were part of the coming. Even, as I stated, the destruction of Jerusalem was part of the coming, just like Him making the stones to cry out would have been, if He chose to do it.

The biblical facts are....

• Jesus did make that prophesy
• Luke 13:6-9 is in the bible
• Stephen made a Holy Spirit inspired argument with "irresistible wisdom"
• The leaders of Israel did rejected their Messiah and killed Stephen
• Saul (Paul) appears on the scene at that precise moment
• All of the apostles have died
• Jesus has not yet come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and rewarded each according to his works

Yes, but those facts are not necessarily the kingdom or the stopping of the kingdom. So they are non-sequitor.

 

[Clete]

Right, So would Jesus be giving that kind of prophecies in that kind of language? I say no, because He had seen the likelihood of the prophecies failing.

The biblical fact of the matter is that He did so and that it did not come to pass.

And that seems like what Jesus is saying--that despite His disciples being hunted down and killed by those opposed to the true King, those who were leaders of Israel, the kingdom would still come in some way.

Except that isn't what He said, Derf. That's the way you want to interpret what He said but that simply isn't what He actually said.

Are you saying that mankind could not repent enough to keep from being destroyed?

I didn't say anything about mankind. There won't be a single human being killed by God destroying the Earth with fire. That happens after the White Throne Judgement and all of God's enemies will be vanquished and sent to the Lake of Fire. All mortal human flesh will be quite gone and done with.

Yep. Read the Jeremiah passage again. It seems you forgot what it said:
[Jer 18:7 CSB] "At one moment I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, and destroy it.
[Jer 18:8 CSB] "However, if that nation about which I have made the announcement turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the disaster I had planned to do to it.
[Jer 18:9 CSB] "At another time I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it.
[Jer 18:10 CSB] "However, if it does what is evil in my sight by not listening to me, I will relent concerning the good I had said I would do to it.
These are decisions of wrath and mercy, made at an instant in time and changed in what appears to be intants in time. Why is this controversial to you?

I didn't forget anything and it isn't controversial. The destruction of the Earth is not about punishing anyone. It's about wiping out this order of things and making a fresh start with those whom God has saved.

I never said "arbitrary". Why do you insert it?

I am merely putting explicit words to what you are implying. God cannot simply decide to ignore what He's promised. If He does so, it is for good reason that is consistent both with His word and with the principles of righteousness and justice.

You're saying that for someone to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed as part of a judgment of God means they are Preterists? That seems a broad stretch, don't you think?

You're the one who brought up the destruction of Israel as though the events that occurred in AD 70 where prophesied to happen. They weren't. The only ones that I've ever suggest such a thing are the Preterists. The cutting off of Israel was not a prophesied part of Israel's program, which was right on track through Christ's life, through Pentecost and right through to the "irresistible wisdom" presented to Israel's leaders through Stephen. If their being cut off was not prophesied, then events that took place a generation later as a result of having been cut off certainly weren't either.

You are, as shown above.

Lair.

Listen to yourself for a moment, Clete.

The entire thread is still right here for the whole world to read, Derf.

No, not as a single event. The kingdom coming wasn't a single event. It wasn't fully there at that time, neither was it fully there when Christ died, or even when He resurrected. It wasn't fully there at Pentecost, but all of these events were part of the coming. Even, as I stated, the destruction of Jerusalem was part of the coming, just like Him making the stones to cry out would have been, if He chose to do it.

Everything but the last sentence here is more or less correct. The last sentence has no basis in scripture whatsoever.

Yes, but those facts are not necessarily the kingdom or the stopping of the kingdom. So they are non-sequitor.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.

If your doctrine is correct then those facts aren't facts. The problem for you is that they are facts. You can reject biblical reality and substitute your own if you like. That's what pretty much the entire Christian world does. Why let the bible stand in the way of a good doctrine, right?

 

[Right Divider]

If this thinking is true then the prophesies were meaningless. In fact, they weren't prophecies at all because the "kingdom of God" had already come! As Jesus said, "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.". He didn't say there that the kingdom of God was coming or that they'd see it before they died but that it IS within them (present tense). And so, once again, this cannot be what Jesus was referring to when He's talking about some of them no dying before they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, with power and the angels to judge men according to their works.

Do you really think that the "kingdom had come" at that time? Is it possible to understand this in a different way?

What are the attributes of this kingdom that Jesus was preaching was "at hand"? Did the kingdom just suddenly come and nobody knew about it?

Matt 6:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.​

​

Was God's will being done at that time on the earth?

Was the kingdom already restored in Luke 17? Were the apostles ignorant when they asked Jesus about this later... in Acts 1?

Acts 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

Is it possible for the "kingdom to come" before Christ's death on the cross?

I would note that many (if not all) of those that claim that the "kingdom" is "just a spiritual kingdom" use Luke 17:21 as their confirmation of that theory.

https://graceambassadors.com/prophecy/mmlj/the-kingdom-within-you

 

[Clete]

Do you really think that the "kingdom had come" at that time? Is it possible to understand this in a different way?

In some sense, the nation of Israel has always been the kingdom of God.

What are the attributes of this kingdom that Jesus was preaching was "at hand"? Did the kingdom just suddenly come and nobody knew about it?

Matt 6:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.​

​

Was God's will being done at that time on the earth?

Was the kingdom already restored in Luke 17? Were the apostles ignorant when they asked Jesus about this later... in Acts 1?

Acts 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

Is it possible for the "kingdom to come" before Christ's death on the cross?

I would note that many (if not all) of those that claim that the "kingdom" is "just a spiritual kingdom" use Luke 17:21 as their confirmation of that theory.

https://graceambassadors.com/prophecy/mmlj/the-kingdom-within-you

The kingdom of God was present in whatever sense Jesus meant it in Luke 17:21. Beyond that, we are in agreement.

In Matthew 16 Jesus was not talking about some spiritualized version of the Kingdom. He was talking about His return as the King of Israel and of the whole Earth, over which He will rule with a rod of iron as the King of Kings.

 

[Right Divider]

In some sense, the nation of Israel has always been the kingdom of God.

Yes, that was sort of my point.

The kingdom of God was present in whatever sense Jesus meant it in Luke 17:21. Beyond that, we are in agreement.

I believe that the sense in which Jesus meant it was that the King of the Kingdom was right there in their midst (and that they were denying Him).

I believe that Luke 17:21 is in the same sense as Matt 12:28:

​

Matt 12:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:28) But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. ​

​

Again, I think that He's talking about Himself.

In Matthew 16 Jesus was not talking about some spiritualized version of the Kingdom. He was talking about His return as the King of Israel and of the whole Earth, over which He will rule with a rod of iron as the King of Kings.

100%

 

[Clete]

Yes, that was sort of my point.

I believe that the sense in which Jesus meant it was that the King of the Kingdom was right there in their midst (and that they were denying Him).

I believe that Luke 17:21 is in the same sense as Matt 12:28:

​

Matt 12:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:28) But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. ​

​

Again, I think that He's talking about Himself.

100%

I agree.