Dark Virtue
New Member
Is my reasoning correct in asserting that Christ was not referring to the transfiguration?
If I'm wrong then I'd like to know where I went wrong.
If I'm wrong then I'd like to know where I went wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Some biblical inerrantists try to assert that the verse above doesn't talk about Christ's second coming, but rather His transfiguration which occurs in the next chapter. This isn't plausible for three reasons:
1.) Christ mentions in the passage that He would come "with His angels in the glory of His Father." The transfiguration text, however, makes no mention of angels.
2.) The context in which Christ spoke makes clear references to judgment, but at the transfiguration, just as there were no angels, there was no final judgment either. In fact, no judgment of any kind was involved in this story, so how could this event have been the fulfillment of Jesus’s promise in the preceding chapter?
3.) The beginning of the next chapter mentions that the transfiguration happened only six days after Christ had said that some hearing Him that day would not die until they saw Him coming in His kingdom. Now if the fulfillment of Christ's promise to His audience had come only six days later, that would mean that Christ had, in effect, said, "Verily, I say to you, there are some standing here who will still be alive six days from now to see the son of man coming in his kingdom," which is NOT the meaning of the verses.