Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Morant61 | 51936 | ||
Greetings Treadway! I must not be explaining myself very well! :-) My 'interpretative problem' is the assumption that Mt. 16:28 refers to the second physical coming of Christ to earth. The verse doesn't say anything about the physical return of Christ, so one must assume that here. Let's compare though the places where the phrase is used in a physical sense. Mt. 24:30 - "‘‘At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Mark 13:26 - "‘‘At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." Luke 21:27 - "At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." In these three verses, the physical return of Christ is mentioned. However, none of these verses says that the disciples would see it occur. Those who will see it are referred to only in a generic third person plural. So, my point is simply that Jesus does not specifically say that His disciples will see Him return. Scripture only says that they will see His kingdom coming in power. To what does that refer? That is debatable! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51938 | ||
Greetings Tim: You say: So, my point is simply that Jesus does not specifically say that His disciples will see Him return. Scripture only says that they will see His kingdom coming in power. To what does that refer? That is debatable! ------------------------------- Everything is debatable. I just presented a position that makes sense to me, based upon my individual reading and understanding ablility. Personally I see no wriggle room. And, as I said, each person is the jury. I do know this: a LOT would be at stake if this were viewed as I have described. A lot of motive for keeping it ambiguous. But, at least, you are willing to recognize that it is "debatable". That is admirable.... Treadway :) |
||||||