What were the disciples asking when they inquired about “what will be the sign of your coming”?

[MatthewG]

Thank you for summing up some of your comments, @3 Resurrections.

 

[Davy]

In the olivet discourse of Matthew, when the disciples asked “what will be the sign of your coming?”, did they already fully comprehend at this point that Christ was going to go ascend to heaven and then return?

in other words, IF, at the time of the Olivet discourse, the disciples did not know that Christ was going to ascend to heaven and then at a future point, return, then why should the question, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE” be understood as “what will be the sign of your return”?

So... you are SUGGESTING... and of course wrongly, that if Christ's disciples upon the Mount of Olives with Him had a limited understanding of what He was talking about, then what Jesus taught there could just mean ANYTHING?!@? That kind of thinking ain't nothing but CONFUSION.

It is obvious you have just ACCEPTED a crock of MEN'S DOCTRINES on the meaning of Lord Jesus' Olivet discourse instead of understanding it yourself. Because if you had... understood it, then you would have known that Jesus was giving the same SIGNS He gave the Church in His Book of Revelation, specifically the SEALS of Revelation 6!

Did Christ's disciples with Him upon the Mount Olives know about the SEALS of Revelation 6? No, of course not, because Jesus had not given them His Revelation yet, not until Apostle John on Patmos. But could He still have shown them some things about the end of this world that were not recorded in The Gospel Books? Yes, of course, because at Luke 24:27 Jesus starting at Moses and the prophets expounded all things to His disciples written of Himself.

 

[pandaflower]

Not possible. Jesus at His resurrection did not come with angels to give a reward to every man according to his works, as He promised to do in Matthew 16:27-28, while some of that audience was still alive to see that coming. Jesus's prediction in those verses makes it sound as if only a very small minority of those listening to Him at that time would still be alive. At Jesus's resurrection just a little way down the road from that prediction, it would be the universal majority who would have still been alive (almost no one - if anyone at all - who was then listening to Him would have died by that time).

Why do people struggle so hard against the obvious? Jesus returned with His angels to give rewards at a judgment of every man while some of those He was personally speaking to at that very moment in Matthew 16:27-28 would be alive to see it happen. In other words, Christ bodily returned for His second coming back in the first century. The Scriptures are packed with evidence of this.

The Gospels weren't written as Jesus walked and brought his message to the people.

The Gospel was written decades after Jesus returned home.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In the olivet discourse of Matthew, when the disciples asked “what will be the sign of your coming?”, did they already fully comprehend at this point that Christ was going to go ascend to heaven and then return?

No, that is not likely.

in other words, IF, at the time of the Olivet discourse, the disciples did not know that Christ was going to ascend to heaven and then at a future point, return, then why should the question, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE” be understood as “what will be the sign of your return”?

Their perspective at that time means nothing. Jesus's perspective is what matters. He knew they would eventually understand what He was talking about. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew to record the disciples' second question the way he did (which was different than how Mark and Luke recorded it) so that people would understand that Jesus spoke about two different events in the Olivet Discourse. Without the reference to His coming and the end of the age, that may not have been understood, but God made sure it was written that way so that people would understand that not everything Jesus said would only relate to the destruction of the temple buildings.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD, there was no gathering of the elect by the angels in 70 AD and there was no end to any age in 70 AD, so that has to be taken into account here.

 

[pandaflower]

No, that is not likely.


Their perspective at that time means nothing. Jesus's perspective is what matters. He knew they would eventually understand what He was talking about. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew to record the disciples' second question the way he did (which was different than how Mark and Luke recorded it) so that people would understand that Jesus spoke about two different events in the Olivet Discourse. Without the reference to His coming and the end of the age, that may not have been understood, but God made sure it was written that way so that people would understand that not everything Jesus said would only relate to the destruction of the temple buildings.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD, there was no gathering of the elect by the angels in 70 AD and there was no end to any age in 70 AD, so that has to be taken into account here.

I think,and contrary to what the LDS funded series, The Chosen, portrays, a disciple named Matthew did not record anything.

It has long been known the authors of gospel texts were anonymous.