Bible prophecies

[Losty]

Hehe I have you beat on that subject.
I don't even need recovery time.

Funny! You've got me there; however, I need a cigarette and somebody needs to make me a sandwich.

Ahahaha you know me I live to serve

[orangebox21]

The context of Matthew 13:41 never suggests the kingdom is established before the coming of the Son of Man.

Read again what it says:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

That's what it says. To send out angels throughout the kingdom that he had already established to weed out the evildoers. Where does it say he hadn't arrived yet?

If, at the time of His second advent, Christ will send out his angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, his kingdom would have to already be in existence. If not, there would be no kingdom with which to send the angels to, in order to weed out everything that causes sin and all who do evil. It says right in the text he sends his angels to his kingdom.

[The Grand Nudger]

-"and a king will come, to pull the sword from the stone"

[GrandizerII]

The context of Matthew 13:41 never suggests the kingdom is established before the coming of the Son of Man.

Read again what it says:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

That's what it says. To send out angels throughout the kingdom that he had already established to weed out the evildoers. Where does it say he hadn't arrived yet?

If, at the time of His second advent, Christ will send out his angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, his kingdom would have to already be in existence. If not, there would be no kingdom with which to send the angels to, in order to weed out everything that causes sin and all who do evil. It says right in the text he sends his angels to his kingdom.

Where in the text? That's what I'm trying to get you to answer.

I see the verse saying that, once in the kingdom, the Son of Man sent angels throughout the kingdom to weed out the evildoers. Which fits very well with other stuff Jesus said other passages in the Synoptic Gospels.

[orangebox21]

---

If, at the time of His second advent, Christ will send out his angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, his kingdom would have to already be in existence. If not, there would be no kingdom with which to send the angels to, in order to weed out everything that causes sin and all who do evil. It says right in the text he sends his angels to his kingdom.

---

Where in the text? That's what I'm trying to get you to answer.

The bold part.

I see the verse saying that, once in the kingdom, the Son of Man sent angels throughout the kingdom to weed out the evildoers. Which fits very well with other stuff Jesus said other passages in the Synoptic Gospels.

Yes, once He is in the kingdom (at the time of His second advent) He will send his angels.... So kingdom, then sending angels. And if He sends the angels at the same time as His second advent it would be: first kingdom, then second advent and sending angels.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

There's a new religious tv series about some angels trying to take over Las Vegas. They are nasty critters. According to the fairy tale when Jesus returns for the last time his thug angels kill all life and destroy the Earth. Satan tries to protect humanity and stop him but fails.

[GrandizerII]

---

---

Where in the text? That's what I'm trying to get you to answer.

The bold part.

I see the verse saying that, once in the kingdom, the Son of Man sent angels throughout the kingdom to weed out the evildoers. Which fits very well with other stuff Jesus said other passages in the Synoptic Gospels.

Yes, once He is in the kingdom (at the time of His second advent) He will send his angels.... So kingdom, then sending angels. And if He sends the angels at the same time as His second advent it would be: first kingdom, then second advent and sending angels.

No, the bolded doesn't say what you think it says.

So Jesus is already in the kingdom (as you just said near the end of the quote). So the second advent had already occurred. There is no "first kingdom". There is a figurative kingdom sometimes alluded to in the Gospels because the Gospel authors needed to adjust their theology due to the failure of Jesus' prophecy, but this passage is not one of them.

[Vicki Q]

I wonder if I might reply to the OP by referring to the Matt 24 parr passages mentioned earlier in the thread; by examining them in their C1 Jewish context.

The question (1-3) translates as, “When is the Temple to be destroyed, and this (2nd Temple) age to end?”

The answer doesn't finish until 26:1 “When Jesus finished what he had to say”. The passages between jumped on by the 'Left Behind' folk are taken to refer to the Second Coming, but that would be a really weird answer to the question put by the disciples. They all refer to AD70.

They are actually a mixture of OT quotation and Jewish Apocalyptic style commentary which relate to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. E.g. Luke 21:20-24 describes the famous Siege of Jerusalem (Emperor Titus' 3 armies) and the taking of slaves to make the operation self-financing. Once you get your head around Jesus use of symbolic language, which was common at the time, you realise that the relevant passages do refer to AD70.

The NT writers made a big deal of Jesus' prophecy, because the destruction of the Temple was massive and recent. The generation Jesus said would see these things happen, did. Jesus got that prophecy spot on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why call that prophecy? Wouldn't we expect social commentary to find itself in the position of being accurate at least some of the time? Look at all of our pundits. They aren't wrong all the time - and whats the difference between what they do and how you've chosen to interpret the message of "jesus"? I fear the can of worms that "symbolic language" opens as well. What with a "symbolic jesus" being suggested by use of the same reasoning.

[Vicki Q]

Why call that prophecy? Wouldn't we expect social commentary to find itself in the position of being accurate at least some of the time? Look at all of our pundits. They aren't wrong all the time - and whats the difference between what they do and how you've chosen to interpret the message of "jesus"? I fear the can of worms that "symbolic language" opens as well. What with a "symbolic jesus" being suggested by use of the same reasoning.

Yes- if a rationalisation is needed that's the way to go. Standard historical criteria do strongly suggest that Jesus said something along the lines of “This Temple will be mashed within a generation”, and it's good that you haven't gone down the usual 'Made up after the event' route.

So it may be that He simply looked at how He thought things were going, and concluded that when things got out of hand, the Romans would act decisively by destroying the Temple.

However that would be a bold prediction to make at a time when things were (relatively) settled in C1 Israel.

Further, because of the whole Jesus-as-replacement-for-Temple thing, any such comment had massive theological implications beyond a throwaway comment- without the destruction, Jesus entire message sinks.

I wonder if the difference between a prophecy and a prediction comes down to whether they occur in a religious context or not.

I must insist that the symbolic can of worms be opened, that we may fish for wisdom*. Jewish Apocalyptic form is a well researched and abundant literary form, and Jesus' use of it in Matt 24 parr is typicality. If we are going to understand what Jesus was saying, we need to appreciate the form in which it appears (be form critical).

Bearing in mind all of the above, Jesus' use of apocalyptic language implies a religious setting, and puts this firmly in the prophecy category.


*It's been a long day.