God's feeling of failure.

[Huggy Bear]

Apparently you're confused. You realize that the "Son of man" is the one speaking right?
So when he says "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." He is speaking of John.

Theodore Robinson
"..it is clear that for some reason or other the first generation of Christians did expect his speedy return, and if this impression was not based on his own language, whence could it have come?" (The Gospel of Matthew, p. 195).

C.H. Spurgeon
"If a child were to read this passage I know what he would think it meant: he would suppose Jesus Christ was to come, and there were some standing there who should not taste death until really and literally he did come. This, I believe, is the plain meaning." ("An Awful Premonition" in 12 Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ - Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976, 5)

Milton Terry
"All sorts of efforts have been made to evade the simple meaning of these words, but they all spring from the dogmatic prepossession that the coming of the Son of man in his glory must needs be an event far future from the time when the words were spoken." (Apocalyptics pp.213-252)

No one agrees with your apologetic twisting.

Look, it is very simple. Jesus stated:

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Was John standing there? Yes.
Did John see his coming? Yes.

You get it?

[Ravenshire]

---

Let's put it in context shall we?

16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

According to your own holy book, the "son of man" being referenced is also the son of gawd, not John. Or, are you claiming that John will "reward every man according to his works."

Sorry to disrupt your cherry picking.

---

Apparently you're confused. You realize that the "Son of man" is the one speaking right?
So when he says "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." He is speaking of John.

Nope. Not confused at all since I read, write and speak English fluently. "some standing here" is clearly plural, not singular as you would have us believe. Hes not speaking of one but of a group. A subset of a larger group, but still a group. "There is one here among you" would give weight to your apologetic bullshit. Unfortunately for you and your argument, that's not what he (allegedly) said.

It's actually amazing the number of different explanations I've heard to try to wish away this very damning bit of text. Your god-boy is claiming that some of the people he's addressing will continue to live until he returns, bringing the kingdom of gawd with him. It is such an utter failure that it's hard to conceive of one greater. Most people would give up on someone who's 2000 seconds late. Gotta grant you faithers are a tenacious bunch.

Besides, even if your claim were corrrect, John never "saw a new heaven and a new earth." He was speaking of a vision. In plain words, he was relating a hallucination.

Was John standing there? Yes.

Irrelevant. See above.

Did John see his coming? Yes.

No, he didn't. Again, see above.

---

No one agrees with your apologetic twisting.

Including many of his fellow christers.

[Huggy Bear]

---

---

Apparently you're confused. You realize that the "Son of man" is the one speaking right?
So when he says "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." He is speaking of John.

Nope. Not confused at all since I read, write and speak English fluently. "some standing here" is clearly plural, not singular as you would have us believe. Hes not speaking of one but of a group. A subset of a larger group, but still a group. "There is one here among you" would give weight to your apologetic bullshit. Unfortunately for you and your argument, that's not what he (allegedly) said.

It's actually amazing the number of different explanations I've heard to try to wish away this very damning bit of text. Your god-boy is claiming that some of the people he's addressing will continue to live until he returns, bringing the kingdom of gawd with him. It is such an utter failure that it's hard to conceive of one greater. Most people would give up on someone who's 2000 seconds late. Gotta grant you faithers are a tenacious bunch.

Besides, even if your claim were corrrect, John never "saw a new heaven and a new earth." He was speaking of a vision. In plain words, he was relating a hallucination.

Was John standing there? Yes.

Irrelevant. See above.

Did John see his coming? Yes.

No, he didn't. Again, see above.

---

No one agrees with your apologetic twisting.

Including many of his fellow christers.

Here is the definition of some

some
səm/
determiner
determiner: some

1. an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2. used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"

Tell me again how fluent you are in English.

[Ravenshire]

Here is the definition of some

[emphasis is mine]

Really, that's all you could find? Or, were those the only ones you could shoehorn into your argument. Color me unimpressed.

some
səm/
determiner
determiner: some

1. an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2. used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"

Tell me again how fluent you are in English.

Apparently more fluent than you. Yet again you miss the context. Your buy-bull verse doesn't say "someone." If it did, you might have a case. "There are some among" is clearly not the same as "there is someone" (note the singular), "he made some money" (abstract) or "they suckered some fool into believing their bullshit" (note the singular context). Within the context of the buy-bull verse, some is a plural, despite your apologetics, bullshit and desperate need to wish it otherwise.

I found a few more definitions than you.

some
1. being an undetermined or unspecified one: Some person may object.
2. (used with plural nouns) certain: Some days I stay home.
3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.: to some extent.
4. unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.: We talked for some time. He was here some weeks.
5. Informal. of impressive or remarkable quality, consequence, extent, etc.: That was some storm.
pronoun
6. certain persons, individuals, instances, etc., not specified: Some think he is dead.
7. an unspecified number, amount, etc., as distinguished from the rest or in addition: He paid a thousand dollars and then some.
adverb
8. (used with numerals and with words expressing degree, extent, etc.) approximately; about: Some 300 were present.
9. Informal. to some degree or extent; somewhat: I like baseball some. She is feeling some better today.
10. Informal. to a great degree or extent; considerably: That's going some.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some
I also cited my source so you can go check that I'm not cherry picking or quote mining.

Number 6 above (bolded for you) is the best match for the context of the buy-bull verse. Notice it's plural, as is the case in your buy-bull verse or any "quote" where there isn't an implication of an individual.

Further, you failed to address the point that John didn't see jack shit, let alone the son-of-god coming in his kingdom or a new heaven and earth because he was describing a vision, not a reality. Full marks for spin and bullshit. Very poor marks indeed for making your case.

[max-greece]

That same appointment date you faithers have been waiting almost 2000 years for? The one that was so imminent that jebus claimed that some of the people he was speaking to would not fucking die before it happened?!?

Unless you're a professor of bullshit, you really should change your moniker.

Wrong. This is the exact quote.

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

In case you haven't figured it out, he was speaking of John. You know, the guy that wrote the book of Revelation?

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Nice choice of version.

New International Version:

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Are is plural, therefore some is plural. How many John's were there?

Oh - and I thought none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses - isn't it the same John that wrote the gospel that wrote Revelations?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Wrong. This is the exact quote.

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

In case you haven't figured it out, he was speaking of John. You know, the guy that wrote the book of Revelation?

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Nice choice of version.

New International Version:

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Are is plural, therefore some is plural. How many John's were there?

Oh - and I thought none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses - isn't it the same John that wrote the gospel that wrote Revelations?

The gospels of John weren't even written by the apostle.

Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,[4]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi...nine_works

As far as Revelation:

More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors.[16]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

The bible is full of authors pretending to be other authors while disguised as another author, 30-100+ years later, while gospels we can prove originated in the same area around 2 CE are voted out as "non canonical," including the Gospel of Mary, which actually would make Mark's commentary on women make sense.

[max-greece]

So there are more than a few holes in Huggy's theory.

I'm shocked!

[Losty]

You take the good with the bad. We all do it.

"For the joy set before Him (Jesus), He endured the cross...."
That joy is every person who chooses to be His eternal companion- His family.

Lucifer hates you so intently because you are intended to be his replacement, since he disqualified himself from his high position. Even though he was covered in jewels and was the Music Minister in Heaven, he CHOSE rebellion.
We, who have not seen and dwelt in glory unsurpassed (like Satan), yet believed and chose God's Redemption are destined to a higher place than him.

No God is not depressed.
He is the most joyful, delightful being in the universe who is awaiting the fruit of wisdom.

I call bullshit. Lucifer is hateful? Did he send plagues? Did he ever drown almost everyone? Did ask anyone to kill their children to prove their love for him? What's the worst thing Lucifer has done? Talk a girl into eating an apple?

[Cinjin]

wow, we got three crazy theists in here.

Fuckin fruitloops

[Rampant.A.I.]

You take the good with the bad. We all do it.

"For the joy set before Him (Jesus), He endured the cross...."
That joy is every person who chooses to be His eternal companion- His family.

Lucifer hates you so intently because you are intended to be his replacement, since he disqualified himself from his high position. Even though he was covered in jewels and was the Music Minister in Heaven, he CHOSE rebellion.
We, who have not seen and dwelt in glory unsurpassed (like Satan), yet believed and chose God's Redemption are destined to a higher place than him.

No God is not depressed.
He is the most joyful, delightful being in the universe who is awaiting the fruit of wisdom.

I call bullshit. Lucifer is hateful? Did he send plagues? Did he ever drown almost everyone? Did ask anyone to kill their children to prove their love for him? What's the worst thing Lucifer has done? Talk a girl into eating an apple?

According to the OT, before the Christians adopted Lucifer as the direct opposition to God, he was banished for not bowing to Adam.

As in, literally, the most glorious Angel wouldn't bow before what God made playing with clay during lunchtime, and gave exclusive ownership of Earth to. For this, God threw him out of Heaven for being prideful.

Prideful. Too proud to bow to something God created for the sole purpose of worshiping God.

It gets even stranger from here, as early Christians used the term "Lucifer" in a positive sense, bishops took it as a given name, and early hymnals to Christ refer to him as "The Morning Star."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer