The Gospel shall be preached to all nations and then the end shall come

[Aupmanyav]

Paul converted on the road to Damascus several years after Christ's crucifixion. He had previously persecuted Christians. However, while these differences with the other disciples is openly acknowledged, he was fully accepted by the other disciples and early Church culminating in acceptance of his letters as part of New Testament canon during the fourth century. The idea that Paul is some kind of apostate is universally rejected by Christians and the Baha'i writings.

It does not matter if Paul was accepted by some of the apostles or that Christians adopted his writings in later time, because the basic thing is that the apostles did not have any divine authority. That went with Jesus. Later a hallucination of a person to have seen Jesus is does not prove anything. Bahaollah too saw a 'Maid of Heaven".

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, the later people can do whatever they want. I do not know how far the explanations of Abdul Baha, Shoghi or HoJ match with what your Iranian preacher wrote, or whether his writings were not changed at any time. That would depend on the date of the first printed book on his writings. What books appeared in his life-time and what appeared later. I have heard the Bahai members of the forum say that his many of his writings are yet not published. Now, who can vouch for those writings? Whether they are his or any of his followers of a later time? Do not you use the same criterea to assess the scriptures of other religions?

The problem of what Baha'u'llah intended is not such a major challenge as it is in other religions. We have many of the original works either in Baha'u'llah's own hand writing or that of His secretary. The major works such as the Aqdas and Iqan and many others have been translated into English. So while there are many tablets or letters that were written to individuals the main gist of what Baha'u'llah intended is clear. There is no real conflict with successive works.

 

[stvdv]

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

IMO: This just means that IF all people hear and practise virtuous living as Jesus showed us THEN the "end of suffering shall come"

BUT: I know that people love to read more into it, I don't. I Just use common sense and a little discrimination.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It does not matter if Paul was accepted by some of the apostles or that Christians adopted his writings in later time, because the basic thing is that the apostles did not have any divine authority. That went with Jesus. Later a hallucination of a person to have seen Jesus is does not prove anything. Bahaollah too saw a 'Maid of Heaven".

Jesus appointed Peter His successor and Peter in turn affirmed the validity of what Paul taught. Beyond that we have the concept of Apostolic succession that derives its legitimacy from the Gospel accounts. Consider the Catholic Church where Peter is seen as being the first Pope.

One man's hallucination is another's mystical experience.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One man's hallucination is another's mystical experience.

True, the difference is only in the name, the event does not change - I think the entry of a real woman in Siyah-Chal, the Iranian jail, was impossible. So, it can only be a hallucination. 'Maid of Heaven' thing was not the only one, what other hallucinations did he have? More men, women?

"it was during his imprisonment in the Síyáh-Chál that he had several mystical experiences, and received a vision of a "maiden from God", through whom he received his mission as a messenger of God." - Wikipedia

Jesus appointed Peter His successor and Peter in turn affirmed the validity of what Paul taught. Beyond that we have the concept of Apostolic succession that derives its legitimacy from the Gospel accounts. Consider the Catholic Church where Peter is seen as being the first Pope.
One man's hallucination is another's mystical experience.

Technically, the authority ends with Peter, unless God / Jesus gave specific authority to Peter that this tradition should continue for all times? Did God/Jesus do that? The authority has to be phrased differently.

"Eric G. Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (1964) "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over"." - Wikipedia
Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think Jesus intended a solely Jewish audience or had a wider audience in mind?

Jesus, whatever he did or said, did not write the gospels. He may be quoted in them. He didn't write them, but I think whoever did write them wrote them to Jews not to gentiles. Whoever writes the gospels is telling Jews its time to open up Judaism to let all the goodness out. Instead of separation and purification and research mode, the gospels say its time to switch into shine mode. Instead of wearing black to wear white. Jesus preaches not to hide the candle under a basket. His message "The kingdom of God is here!" is saying the same thing. "Mix in. Be the change."

The gospels are universal in nature and promote a different approach to Judaism. In the gospels if Jesus touches a leper Jesus does not become diseased. Instead the leper is healed. The gospels then introduce a situation which is probably difficult to treat under the laws as written. What if when touching a leper they aren't a leper? What if touching a leper doesn't contaminate the Jew? Then the law reverses what they are supposed to do, and they are compelled to embrace the leper. The model for this is Zechariah 14, though it is more like a dream than a law. Zechariah hopes that Judaism can become an incorruptible light.

Outside of the gospels there is nuance to this and practicality. In the gospels Jesus is impervious to corruption and has the atoning power of the red heifer at the same time, but James (brother of Jesus) is practical. He advises that Christians must keep themselves free of spot or blemish. That is, they are to mix but not be corrupted.

Jesus represents a very different mode of Judaism, because leprosy is not merely physical but can refer to something which taints a person internally. The message of Jesus touching the leper is about more than just a skin ailment. Its an announcement to other Jews that its time to touch all the lepers rather than just leave them outside. Jesus touching a leper represents the highest attainment: a Jew who can't be contaminated, who can't become part of the nations, who has the law internally within themselves and transforms all from violence to peace.

 

[firedragon]

It is true that Muslims see the Bible as corrupted. Baha'is don't take this hard line, scorched earth approach. So most Baha'is familiar with this topic would agree with Christians that Paul was both a disciple and had authority. This reality is affirmed by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:14-16). Its also the official Baha'i view.

Let me make the distinction if you dont mind. Muslims may say a lot of things, but the core Muslim belief about the Bible is that it was never the work of God, it was the work of Man and people said "it was from God". Well, maybe that's not relevant.

Peace.

 

[Windwalker]

I hear you and appreciate we simply have a different understanding and narrative around the NT.

What I've been coming to realize in my search for understanding these differences in understandings, I've come to appreciate that it is more than just simply different understandings. It's actually a different paradigm, or underlying premises as filters through which we approach things like understanding scripture.

You can have difference of understandings taking place within a certain common framework, such as you might see in evangelical circles disputing interpretations of scriptures. But all those disputes are all taking place within the single underlying assumption that scripture is God's Word protected by the Holy Spirit. That I would agree is, simply differences in understanding.

When it comes to using a different paradigm altogether, that's more like a different set of eyes through which everything is held and read. An example of this would be the shift from a Ptolemaic model of the cosmos, versus a Copernican heliocentric model. The latter shifts everything that is understood, once that underlying assumption shifts.

That changes everything, much more than simple disputes within a common framework. It calls into question how one sees and interprets what is seen or experienced. And this is true far beyond simply biblical hermeneutics, but it touches everything in the world with it. The whole of reality is approached and held through a different set of underlying assumptions. It is the mode of perception itself which shifts, and everything is understood differently. We can experience one of more of these paradigm shifts in our lifetimes, or no shifts at all.

A Preterist view waters down scripture IMHO. Like many things the disciples struggled to understand what Jesus meant and genuinely believed He would Return within their lifetimes. He clearly did not.

I would not agree with this however. It might watering it down, for you but not for others. It may actually be opening up scripture to a deeper, more illuminating understanding for them. It is not simply a matter of not getting what Jesus meant about spiritual principles. That is something true for everyone of us. No one can really understanding the depth of spiritual teachings, unless they have the context of personal experience or "revelation" in order to see them.

But a belief in the Bible as God's Word protected by the Holy Spirit, does not fall into that category, nor does understanding it through the lens of modern higher criticism. Those are predicated on different things, and while spiritual experience may play a factor in opening those modes of perception up, they generally do not change the underlying interpretative assumptions. Those shifts may happen with or without spiritual experience.

Seeing the Gospels as being Divinely Inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit doesn't detract from at all from its metaphor and allegory.

I would agree with this, up the point that when one does encounter something in scripture that doesn't reconcile easily with their underlying assumptions. Now, that conflict can result in seriously detracting from its metaphor and allegory. Insisting Adam and Eve were literal historical figures, in order to deny science's challenge to our mythological understandings of man's origins, definitely can detract from the metaphor.

I come back to this essay I first encountered a couple decades ago, which still speaks this truth as well today. I think it's worth reading through the whole thing to get a feel for what I'm saying, how that to insist on literalizing scripture, to read it as a literal scientific explanation of man's origins, will definitely detract from its metaphors. The title of the essay says so much: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

A brief excerpt:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer-Stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.

One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem.​

I have no problem at all in someone believing literally that Jesus walked on water, so long as they are getting the basic metaphor behind it. But once that becomes a discussion of how this can be validated by science, that a scientific understanding can believe in it too, if the right kind of evidence can be presented (Creationism is a perfect example of that), now the metaphor is not heard at all. It's like trying to argue "proofs" for God, in order for a modernist to "believe". I have no issue with a modernist believing in God, as I would fit that category more or less. But to make it contingent upon that mode of thought, that the metaphors are literally true, I reject as inaccurate and untrue.

So if in doubt, I do not assume the Gospel writers got it wrong, rather what what did Jesus intend when He spoke during this critical time leading up to His crucifixion.

I would not frame it as "they got it wrong", per se. I'd start with the premise that they were humans trying to understand God and their experience of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings. I would acknowledge they were "inspired" to be sure, but that inspiration does not translate into technical details. It does not translate into "inerrancy", any more than a great inspired work of music that touches lives is.

Again, it's that underlying premise, that paradigm, that takes words like 'inspired' and translates that to mean without error, or that there must be a single truth to be understood within the texts. And that's a functional system up to a point. But it's the point where it hits a critical eye of modernity and beyond, where now the metaphor, or the meaning of the symbol, runs into a point of conflict. At which point, that meaning becomes disrupted. A resolution can be found by shifting the paradigm itself, until that no longer serves us anymore either.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Let me make the distinction if you dont mind. Muslims may say a lot of things, but the core Muslim belief about the Bible is that it was never the work of God, it was the work of Man and people said "it was from God". Well, maybe that's not relevant.

Peace.

There is no doubt the Word given by Christ is supported in the Quran.

Also, the Bible was handed down the same way as the Quran, fro. Word to scribe, albeit it took a few more years to put it to a written record.

That it was to be preached to all the world, proves the truth it did contain, as it has been. Even the Quran has not had that wide an audience.

Fortunately , they both do now though.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Let me make the distinction if you dont mind. Muslims may say a lot of things, but the core Muslim belief about the Bible is that it was never the work of God, it was the work of Man and people said "it was from God". Well, maybe that's not relevant.

Peace.

Yes, Thats the belief of mainstream Muslims.

We Bahais believe Muhammad and the Quran taught that the Bible which is available among Jews and Christians are legitimate and contains true teachings of God.


In another words in Bahai view the Muslims misinterpreted Quran.

Quran only says, the Jews and Christian misinterpreted the Bible and altered its meaning, but mainstream Muslims think, Quran means to say, the text of the Bible is corrupted or never was legitimate from beginning.

QURAN 4:46,

"So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good."

Does it makes sense if Muhammad believed Bible is illegitimate, He blames people of the books for misinterpretation? If the Text was already not a True text, what difference does it make to interpret it correctly? Hope you can understand.


The recorded traditions of Prophet obviously confirm the Bible. Here is one:

“According to Abu Dawud, Ibn Umar it is reported that a group of Jews came to invite the Messenger of Allah to Qu’ff. So he visited them. Once there, they said to him: ‘O Abu Al-Qasim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman. Pronounce your judgment on them. ‘They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah who sat on it and says’ Bring the Torah’. They brought it to him. He then removed the cushion from under him and placed the Torah on it saying: ‘I believe in it (the Torah) and in the One who revealed it. ‘” Click here for the reference


By the way, not all Muslims believe the Bible is illegitimate.

Here is a link from wikislam

Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Qur'an 2:79) - WikiIslam

 

[Neuropteron]

What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?

Hi,

The analogy Jesus gave in Mt 24:37 compares the "end" to Noah's day when a wicked society was destroyed. However those that took note of God's warning were saved. "...so the presence of the son of man will be".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

With the never ending USA election debacle dominating news headlines that simultaneously fascinates and disturbs, its time to gain solace from that old time religion.
The final sermon of Christ is known as the Olivet discourse where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jewish Temple and events that will accompany His Return (the Parousia). The sermon is recorded in different ways in the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. One verse in Matthew records the command to preach the Gospel to all nations with an abrupt prediction that the end shall come:
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14
So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet? If it hasn’t, what else is required? What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?

Yes, I find in the 24th chapter of Matthew along tne 13t chapter of Mark , and with the 21st chapter of Luke there is both a 'minor' and a MAJOR fullfillment .
The 'minor' was fullfilled against un-faithful Jerusalem in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem.
The MAJOR fulfillment is for our day or time frame (Rev. 1:10)
These are the ' last days' of badness on Earth as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Meaning along with all the bad news about men's kingdoms or governments (Luke 21:11) there would be good news.
The good news gospel about God's kingdom government (Daniel 2:44). The kingdom Jesus instructed us to ask for to come (thy kingdom come...)
The kingdom would be proclaimed world wide - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
This proclaiming has reached the point that the Bible has been translated into over 1,000 languages.
Even modern technology has made 'rapid Bible translation possible' so that now people even in remote areas can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.
So, we want to remember Matthew 24:14 is Not speaking about each individual because new people are born each day, but that the good news gospel message would be proclaimed or declared to: all nations.
Does anyone know of anyone who has Not heard of the Bible__________
So, we are at the ' final phase ' of Matthew 24:14 so what else is required or what is the ' final signal ' is found at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the powers that be will be saying, " Peace and Security..." that is the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
So, that will trigger the ' end of bad news on Earth' because then Christ will usher in good news and what God's kingdom will accomplish for us.
Besides asking for God's kingdom to come, we are all invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come!
* Come Jesus to take action as king of God's kingdom (Daniel 7:14)
* Come and subdue enemies - Psalm 110 - Come and bring relief to Earth.
* Come and bring sure Peace on Earth - Isaiah 54:13; Micah 4:3-4
* Come so that Earth and its nations will have a healthy environment - Isaiah 33:24; Revelation 22:2
* Come so that we will have happiness in work - Isaiah 65:22-23
* Come and bring an end to ' enemy death ' on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8

 

[firedragon]

Yes, Thats the belief of mainstream Muslims.

We Bahais believe Muhammad and the Quran taught that the Bible which is available among Jews and Christians are legitimate and contains true teachings of God.


In another words in Bahai view the Muslims misinterpreted Quran.

Quran only says, the Jews and Christian misinterpreted the Bible and altered its meaning, but mainstream Muslims think, Quran means to say, the text of the Bible is corrupted or never was legitimate from beginning.

QURAN 4:46,

"So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good."

Does it makes sense if Muhammad believed Bible is illegitimate, He blames people of the books for misinterpretation? If the Text was already not a True text, what difference does it make to interpret it correctly? Hope you can understand.


The recorded traditions of Prophet obviously confirm the Bible. Here is one:

“According to Abu Dawud, Ibn Umar it is reported that a group of Jews came to invite the Messenger of Allah to Qu’ff. So he visited them. Once there, they said to him: ‘O Abu Al-Qasim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman. Pronounce your judgment on them. ‘They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah who sat on it and says’ Bring the Torah’. They brought it to him. He then removed the cushion from under him and placed the Torah on it saying: ‘I believe in it (the Torah) and in the One who revealed it. ‘” Click here for the reference


By the way, not all Muslims believe the Bible is illegitimate.

Here is a link from wikislam

Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Qur'an 2:79) - WikiIslam

I agree that this is your theology.

About WikiIslam, not relevant to me sis.

 

[firedragon]

There is no doubt the Word given by Christ is supported in the Quran.

Also, the Bible was handed down the same way as the Quran, fro. Word to scribe, albeit it took a few more years to put it to a written record.

That it was to be preached to all the world, proves the truth it did contain, as it has been. Even the Quran has not had that wide an audience.

Fortunately , they both do now though.

Regards Tony

I am not debating this. I am only correcting Adrians statement about the Islamic belief.

Sorry Tony. What you say in this post is too erroneous but I am not going to debate this in this manner. Just making statements like that is not my forte. Also, I was not debating if the Bible was Gods word or authentic or anything. I was stating the belief of Islam and just corrected a small statement Adrian made. Mind me.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I find in the 24th chapter of Matthew along tne 13t chapter of Mark , and with the 21st chapter of Luke there is both a 'minor' and a MAJOR fullfillment .
The 'minor' was fullfilled against un-faithful Jerusalem in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem.
The MAJOR fulfillment is for our day or time frame (Rev. 1:10)
These are the ' last days' of badness on Earth as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Meaning along with all the bad news about men's kingdoms or governments (Luke 21:11) there would be good news.
The good news gospel about God's kingdom government (Daniel 2:44). The kingdom Jesus instructed us to ask for to come (thy kingdom come...)
The kingdom would be proclaimed world wide - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
This proclaiming has reached the point that the Bible has been translated into over 1,000 languages.
Even modern technology has made 'rapid Bible translation possible' so that now people even in remote areas can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.
So, we want to remember Matthew 24:14 is Not speaking about each individual because new people are born each day, but that the good news gospel message would be proclaimed or declared to: all nations.
Does anyone know of anyone who has Not heard of the Bible__________
So, we are at the ' final phase ' of Matthew 24:14 so what else is required or what is the ' final signal ' is found at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the powers that be will be saying, " Peace and Security..." that is the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
So, that will trigger the ' end of bad news on Earth' because then Christ will usher in good news and what God's kingdom will accomplish for us.
Besides asking for God's kingdom to come, we are all invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come!
* Come Jesus to take action as king of God's kingdom (Daniel 7:14)
* Come and subdue enemies - Psalm 110 - Come and bring relief to Earth.
* Come and bring sure Peace on Earth - Isaiah 54:13; Micah 4:3-4
* Come so that Earth and its nations will have a healthy environment - Isaiah 33:24; Revelation 22:2
* Come so that we will have happiness in work - Isaiah 65:22-23
* Come and bring an end to ' enemy death ' on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8

You're right.

@adrian009
Matthew 24 itself, shows that it's two-fold.
(Matthew 24:1, 2) 1 Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”

After prophesying that Jerusalem would be destroyed, the disciples wanted to know when that would occur, but they wanted to know something else - when would Jesus be present in kingdom power... in other words, when would he begin ruling, and bring an end to the present system.
(Matthew 24:3) While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”

The kingdom was always on their mind, and since they knew that Jesus was the king of that kingdom, they were in great expectation of it... so much so that they had wrong expectations.
(Acts 1:6-8) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judeʹa and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.”

Jesus encouraged them not to be sidetracked by the timing, but rather to focus on the work of declaring the message worldwide.
The message, he had promised, needed to be declared until the end.
(Matthew 24:14) And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Before the end though, there would be signs indicating the end times - Matthew 24:4-14
After giving that information, Jesus proceeded to give details concerning Jerusalem's demise, and the end of the world.

1 John 2:15-17

 

[Muffled]

It pretty much means what it says on the tin. All human nations and culture must be converted to Christianism or at the very least hear the message of the Gospels, that they accept it or not. Has this happened yet, we can probably say yes with perhapse a few people living in deep in the Amazon or similar region without any outside contact. I think it's fai to say job done though.



The end of the terrestrial existence of humans and their return in God's Garden which of course didn't happen since Jesus, like so many seers before and since. was largely delusional.

I believe like the election the final results are not in yet or as Yogi Berra said "It is never over until it is over."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You're right.
@adrian009
Matthew 24 itself, shows that it's two-fold.
(Matthew 24:1, 2) 1 Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”
After prophesying that Jerusalem would be destroyed, the disciples wanted to know when that would occur, but they wanted to know something else - when would Jesus be present in kingdom power... in other words, when would he begin ruling, and bring an end to the present system.
(Matthew 24:3) While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”
The kingdom was always on their mind, and since they knew that Jesus was the king of that kingdom, they were in great expectation of it... so much so that they had wrong expectations.
(Acts 1:6-8) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judeʹa and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.”
Jesus encouraged them not to be sidetracked by the timing, but rather to focus on the work of declaring the message worldwide.
The message, he had promised, needed to be declared until the end.
(Matthew 24:14) And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Before the end though, there would be signs indicating the end times - Matthew 24:4-14
After giving that information, Jesus proceeded to give details concerning Jerusalem's demise, and the end of the world. 1 John 2:15-17

Yes, Un-faithful Jerusalem's demise, and the end of the world (1 John 2:17)
But Not the end of the Earth, but the world with its desires (1 Corinthians 7:31)
For the righteous will possess the Earth and live on Earth forever - Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21-22
Humble, mild, meek people will inherit the Earth - Psalms 37:9-11
The Earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:5
Notice who will Not abide are wicked people - Psalms 92:7; 104:35 - because it is the wicked who will be ' destroyed forever '.
We can choose to ' repent ' if we do not wish to ' perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am not too eager for the end, especially for my progeny. May they live a happy and long life. Why should, then, the Gospels be preached?

Living a' happy and long life' is why the Gospel (good news) is being preached on such a vast international scale as it is today - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
To live a 'happy and long life' is a reason we ask for God's kingdom ( aka government ) to come..... ( thy kingdom come....)
It is this coming kingdom under Christ's rulership that will do away with ' enemy death ' on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:26.
No more death on Earth means: 'living a happy and long life' ( everlasting life )
Eternal life on a restored beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden originally was.
Jesus, as King of God's kingdom -Daniel 2:44, will undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon humanity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Living a' happy and long life' is why the Gospel (good news) is being preached on such a vast international scale as it is today - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
To live a 'happy and long life' is a reason we ask for God's kingdom ( aka government ) to come..... ( thy kingdom come....)
It is this coming kingdom under Christ's rulership that will do away with ' enemy death ' on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:26.
No more death on Earth means: 'living a happy and long life' ( everlasting life )
Eternal life on a restored beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden originally was.
Jesus, as King of God's kingdom -Daniel 2:44, will undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon humanity.

You mean no Christian dies young, no Christian gets Coronavirus! Yes, I am interested.
Any idea when Christ is likely to come. People have been saying that for 2000 years.
Let death be there. Without death mankind would be exticnt earlier. We are already too crowded.
Same for eternal life.
Satan does not come under Jesus' or God's rule?
This is 21st Century, URAVIP2ME, What you say worked till middle ages. Now it only seems ignorance.

 

[Dawnofhope]

True, the difference is only in the name, the event does not change - I think the entry of a real woman in Siyah-Chal, the Iranian jail, was impossible. So, it can only be a hallucination. 'Maid of Heaven' thing was not the only one, what other hallucinations did he have? More men, women?

"it was during his imprisonment in the Síyáh-Chál that he had several mystical experiences, and received a vision of a "maiden from God", through whom he received his mission as a messenger of God." - Wikipedia

I believe mystical experiences are a rare phenomenon. Given you don’t believe in mystical experiences, then it makes sense to label such an account as an hallucination.

Technically, the authority ends with Peter, unless God / Jesus gave specific authority to Peter that this tradition should continue for all times? Did God/Jesus do that? The authority has to be phrased differently.

"Eric G. Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (1964) "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over"." - Wikipedia
Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

I don’t deny there are problems with Apostolic succession. However the authority of Paul is unquestioned for most conservative Christians. The scriptural basis is Jesus appointed Peter as successor and Peter affirmed Paul. Given up to 14 of the 27 NT books are attributable to Paul and the NT is seen as a cohesive whole, the foundation upon which the Church was built crumbles without Paul. Any scriptural debate simply descends into arguments about the legitimacy of scriptural authority. Its the low hanging fruit for critics of Christianity. So I’m probably more interested in discussing Matthew 24 with those who recognise the authority and legitimacy of scriptures.