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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

What does this have to do with anything I said in my post? Did I say anything in my post which would indicate I was intending to discuss who the real author of the book of Matthew was? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

 

[Marty fox]

That he wouldn't die. He wouldn't leave them. Beat me, you guess is as good as me. When he was captured, they all left him. When he died, they were some going back to fishin.



Those all tie together. I believe the scripture all co-insides with itself.

I don't believe this world is gonna end. I believe that would be really stupid for Yahavah to kill off the world...

Cause guess what that would mean? There would not be an never-ending kingdom.

There wouldn't be a world for people to come in and have life and live, and pick and choose.








I believe the end of the world, is not KOSMOS. It was the end of the Mosaic Age, the material religion.

Sacrifices, yatta yatta.

We do agree on that it was the end of the mosaic age.

The kingdom is spiritual so that will never end.

 

[Marty fox]

Those two texts were already fulfilled back in AD 70 on that year's Pentecost day (the fulfillment of the 1,335th day in Daniel 12:12). You didn't finish the Matthew 16:27-28 text which gives the exact timing for that return, while some of those Christ was then speaking to were still living.

However, even though Christ's second coming was fulfilled back then, we ourselves today are waiting for the THIRD COMING of Christ in our future, when all the saints who will have died since AD 70 will be bodily resurrected into the incorruptible and immortal state. Scripture teaches us that ordinary "year-to-year" history on this planet continues to flow after Christ's second coming (Zechariah 14:4-5, and 14:16). At that THIRD COMING, the culmination of fallen mankind's history on this planet will be wrapped up with a final resurrection and judgment, leaving this planet completely purged of all remaining evil from then onward.

And it will not be soon.

Yes I agree that verse 28 is the coming in judgement

 

[MatthewG]

We do agree on that it was the end of the mosaic age.

The kingdom is spiritual so that will never end.

Thank you for your comment.

To me it's not about taking sides. One says this or One says that.

In the end I don't care what people believe, and that sounds like I am being a butt.

It's a individual choice to believe what one will when it comes to the Bible itself, in my opinion.

Cause while there are group collectives on one matter or another, I just actively choose to reject that an "end time is in store for us in America, or The British, or Canada."

There is only one end time I know of today, and that is simply death. Life ends on here, and you supposedly are going to be entering into a field where Yahavah resides, being either outside of the Kingdom or within it.

I just don't get why people desire for the "End Times" to be for us today, as though the audience before didn't exist, including the Gentiles as well, whom Paul went and preached the Gospel too, there are some verses of scripture which proclaimed Paul did was told, in getting to the uttermost parts of the earth (land of that area.)

Though so many people want this earth destroyed or erradicated, and it just doesn't make sense to me. It does make sense to me of Yahavah taking out those people in that day in age though because they Hated the Father, and Hated the Son, without a cause, which was going to bring into play, the Great and Dreadful day of the LORD.


Idk why other than some people spite others in these matters too, they say "Oh I hope Jesus comes back and gets me out here, to hell with my neighbor cause I am going up in da air to meet the Lord..."


Ya see what I mean? You and many others here can believe what you or they want to but as for myself, I am not gonna doubt the roles played within that whole context of narrative that is had.


Some don't even believe the fullness of the Gentiles had come, I thought it started with Yeshua, the root of Jesse.


I also believe when that age wrapped up it concluded the books being laid open in that day, which are spoke about in Revelation.


I believe Satan was done away with, hell, and sin was taken care of though the only sin that remains is the sin of unbelief.



@Marty fox, just expressing my opinions of the matters, even if I can not fully explain them, so many people look for proof, and I find Jesus saying he was coming back shortly and quickly to mean just that.


There for I faithfully believe these things have come to pass and all us reap what we sow.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes I agree that verse 28 is the coming in judgement

That judgment in Matthew 16:27-28 was the same imminent judgment of both the living and the dead at Christ's appearance and His kingdom. Paul alerted Timothy that this event was "about to be" in his own immediate future.

"I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign;" (2 Timothy 4:1). (YLT)

The living were judged by the "days of vengeance" brought upon the Jewish people of that first century generation, AND the dead were also judged back then in AD 70, each according to their works also, just as Christ said in Matt. 16:27-28. Some of those people in Judea which Christ was then speaking to would still be alive to see that judgment of the living brought upon their own people. But the judgment of the dead was also concurrent with this judgment of the living. Christ bodily returned to earth in AD 70 to take all the bodily resurrected righteous dead with Him back to heaven. Rewards for all the dead according to their works were given at that time. This was more than just a metaphoric "coming" that Christ was speaking about. It was Christ's bodily appearance on the Mount of Olives which took place, as predicted by all the Scriptures.

 

[Marty fox]

Thank you for your comment.

To me it's not about taking sides. One says this or One says that.

In the end I don't care what people believe, and that sounds like I am being a butt.

It's a individual choice to believe what one will when it comes to the Bible itself, in my opinion.

Cause while there are group collectives on one matter or another, I just actively choose to reject that an "end time is in store for us in America, or The British, or Canada."

There is only one end time I know of today, and that is simply death. Life ends on here, and you supposedly are going to be entering into a field where Yahavah resides, being either outside of the Kingdom or within it.

I just don't get why people desire for the "End Times" to be for us today, as though the audience before didn't exist, including the Gentiles as well, whom Paul went and preached the Gospel too, there are some verses of scripture which proclaimed Paul did was told, in getting to the uttermost parts of the earth (land of that area.)

Though so many people want this earth destroyed or erradicated, and it just doesn't make sense to me. It does make sense to me of Yahavah taking out those people in that day in age though because they Hated the Father, and Hated the Son, without a cause, which was going to bring into play, the Great and Dreadful day of the LORD.


Idk why other than some people spite others in these matters too, they say "Oh I hope Jesus comes back and gets me out here, to hell with my neighbor cause I am going up in da air to meet the Lord..."


Ya see what I mean? You and many others here can believe what you or they want to but as for myself, I am not gonna doubt the roles played within that whole context of narrative that is had.


Some don't even believe the fullness of the Gentiles had come, I thought it started with Yeshua, the root of Jesse.


I also believe when that age wrapped up it concluded the books being laid open in that day, which are spoke about in Revelation.


I believe Satan was done away with, hell, and sin was taken care of though the only sin that remains is the sin of unbelief.



@Marty fox, just expressing my opinions of the matters, even if I can not fully explain them, so many people look for proof, and I find Jesus saying he was coming back shortly and quickly to mean just that.


There for I faithfully believe these things have come to pass and all us reap what we sow.

No problem that's what this forum is for.

I myself believe in the PP and amill. I believe that our world as we know it will end because of chapters like revelation 20.

Some will say why would the world end if more people will get saved after but I don't believe any will. I believe that the reason for the end of our world will be the same reason as the flood. Not because of evil the world always has been and always will be evil it will be because the faithful conformed thus the conforming church that will not continue to grow.

The answer is in Genesis 4-6, God didn't destroy the world because it was evil He destroyed it because the faithful came down to just one man Noah and the faithful would of ended with him.

If you believe that the church was raptured in the first century how would you explain that Polycarp was a disciple of John and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp?

 

[3 Resurrections]

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

The Gospel was written decades after Jesus returned home.

The point you were making is to propose that the second coming was Christ's resurrection. How does the Gospels' date of being written down change what Christ said in Matt. 16:27-28 about some of those He was THEN speaking to at that very moment remaining alive to see His second coming return before they had physically died? Your response is a non sequitur argument.

 

[MatthewG]

If you believe that the church was raptured in the first century how would you explain that Polycarp was a disciple of John and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp?

It's an argument that I have heard before but have forgotten. So I can't really say much about it.

Let me ask you a question though, do we need PolyCarps writings, and Ireneaus writtings to complete the message. Cause if a person is going to go off of them, we would most certainly need them wouldnt we?

And if John lived passed the destruction, why in Revelation is he told to measure the temple which had still been standing?

Neither one of them seen the Resurrected Jesus, as John had done.

 

[3 Resurrections]

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.

You are making a presumption. The Scriptures in their entirety and especially Christ disagree with you. Just as Zechariah had prophesied about the siege against Juda and Jerusalem in AD 70 (Zech. 12-14), he predicted that Christ would bodily return to the Mount of Olives "in that day". There was most definitely a gathering of the resurrected elect saints "in that day" by the angels in the AD 70 year. And Paul, John, and Peter all testified about the "ends of the ages", the "last hour" and the "last days" which had come upon that first-century generation (1 Cor. 10:11, Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26, 1 John 2:18, 1 Peter 4:7, etc.).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We do agree on that it was the end of the mosaic age.

Where does scripture ever refer to "the mosaic age"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are making a presumption. The Scriptures in their entirety and especially Christ disagree with you.

I don't need to take this from someone who claims that there will be a 3rd coming of Jesus which is never taught in scripture. He did not come in 70 AD. Get that out of your head. Scripture teaches that He will come in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11) which was visibly and bodily. He has not yet come back in any way, shape or form. You are deceived.

Just as Zechariah had prophesied about the siege against Juda and Jerusalem in AD 70 (Zech. 12-14), he predicted that Christ would bodily return to the Mount of Olives "in that day". There was most definitely a gathering of the resurrected elect saints "in that day" by the angels in the AD 70 year.

No, there most definitely was not. All of the dead will be resurrected at the same time in the future, according to Jesus (John 5:28-29). Like Premils, you imagine multiple mass bodily resurrection events while scripture only speaks of one future resurrection event involving all of the saved and lost (Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29).

And Paul, John, and Peter all testified about the "ends of the ages", the "last hour" and the "last days" which had come upon that first-century generation (1 Cor. 10:11, Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26, 1 John 2:18, 1 Peter 4:7, etc.).

Nonsense. Peter made it clear that the last days would continue until the return of Christ when the heavens and earth are burned up (2 Peter 3:3-13) and that has not yet happened.

 

[MatthewG]

Where does scripture ever refer to "the mosaic age"?

Ages come and go. The Mosaic Age concerning the Law was still on going in the day Yeshua had shown up.

I call it the Mosaic Age, cause they still ran on Laws. They would stone people to death, but also mock God, by invariantly disregarding Yahavah all together.

Jesus stated "23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father."

Jesus also stated "teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Ages come and go, and while during the Apostolic Writings we have, the end of that age had not come. I personally believe we live in the age of Fulfilment.


I call it to Mosaic age for that reason.


But you are more than free to disagree.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you believe that the church was raptured in the first century how would you explain that Polycarp was a disciple of John and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp?

Polycarp knew a different John than the author of Revelation. John was a common name shared by many in the early church. I believe Polycarp's connection was with the young man John surnamed Mark (sister's son to Barnabas). This man remained serving in the early church after Christ's AD 70 return.

The AD 70 "rapture" did not include a so-called "translation" experience for the living saints to take them to heaven. A "translation" change is not spoken of anywhere in 1 Thess. 4. The "rapture" only took bodily-resurrected saints to heaven in AD 70. Those who Paul said would be "alive and remaining" were those who had already been made alive by the resurrection process, (like Lazarus and the Matt. 27:52-53 saints), but who had all "remained" on earth (like the beloved disciple in John 21:22) until Christ's AD 70 return.

 

[Marty fox]

It's an argument that I have heard before but have forgotten. So I can't really say much about it.

Let me ask you a question though, do we need PolyCarps writings, and Ireneaus writtings to complete the message. Cause if a person is going to go off of them, we would most certainly need them wouldnt we?

And if John lived passed the destruction, why in Revelation is he told to measure the temple which had still been standing?

Neither one of them seen the Resurrected Jesus, as John had done.

No definitely not we only need the bible its just the fact that Polycarp was a saved disciple of Jesus so why was he still around to teach Irenaeus.

I believe that Revelation is about 70AD thus it was written before 70AD

 

[Marty fox]

Where does scripture ever refer to "the mosaic age"?

I'm talking about the temple and sacrificial age