I’m not certain that I am taught anything definitive regarding that passage. If the Church has a definitive interpretation, I will gladly assent to it; but I don’t think there is one, which means it’s open for debate.
The “lol” was at my own dumb joke about the passage “losing something in the English”. It seems like a movie reference, but I can’t pinpoint it.
Here are some things a “faith healer” or a doctor with sugar pills cannot do:
Raise people from the dead multiple times
Restore sight to the blind multiple times
Cure Leprosy
Heal a deaf and dumb person
Heal a blind and mute person
Restore a severed ear
Restore a severed leg
This is not the first time you have tried to downplay the claims made of Jesus to make them seem somewhat realistic, if I recall correctly.
I don’t think he said “physical appearance”. Did Jesus make any appearance during that event?
edited to add: and why did you bring up Joel Osteen?
Because Jesus said some would “see” the Son of Man.
The Gospels are not hard to understand. An eight-year-old can read them and know what Jesus meant. No priests, theologians or Apostles are necessary. It means what he said, not what those in the Church power structure need it to mean.
I don’t know.
I’m just curious where he is getting the idea that that passage has to be interpreted in such a way.
Where did you get your idea that your interpretation was pretty much universal?
This is demonstrably untrue.
Jesus often spoke in parables, confusing his audience and even his own disciples (Matthew 13:10-11).
At minimum a cursory knowledge of the Old Testament and Hebrew traditions are necessary to even understand the concept of a Messiah. An in-depth knowledge of those things are required to understand the ‘Son of Man’ concept, baptism, the Eucharist, etc.
If the Gospels are so clear, why are there thousands of Protestant denominations?
I thought it was, is it not? At least until the 19th Century or so.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If they are not really dead, yes.(Matthew 9:24-26) *24 he said, “Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. 25 After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. *
Hysterical blindness can be cured by faith healing
What was called “leprosy” in those days wasnt always actual Hansen’s disease.Tzaraath also translated to leprosy but is not assumed to be Hansen’s disease in most cases.
Hysterical deafness can be cured by faith healing.
He didnt restore the ear, He healed it.*And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.*
Do you have the verse in which He “Restored a severed leg”? because it is not on the normal lists of miracles.
See post #97-You have been corrected.
Well, I don’t have full internet access right now so I can’t do the research.
But I think I’m pretty safe in assuming that any interpretation other than that Jesus is referring to either:
a) the destruction of the temple or
b) Pentecost
was contrived in the 19th century or later.
Because following the example of Jesus is hard, so theologians try to lawyer his words to make it easier. For example, do you believe a wealthy man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? Of course not, because you have been taught the “perfect man” loophole. Have you given away all that you own to follow him? Of course not, because you have been taught Jesus didn’t mean that literally.
Following Jesus is hard, but people want eternal life anyway, so they create an interpretation that allows both.
What was the real reason you left the Protestant faith, and choose the CC? A significant other which was Catholic didn’t have some sway with you, did it? 
That seems to get many folk, boobs tend to have more persuasion than the slickest pulpiteer.
I’m referring to #25:
Not sure how you can have it both ways, but I’m willing to listen. What does “to me” and “proving his divinity” mean then? If we can’t get pass this hurdle, not sure we’ll be able to communicate.
I’d very much be interested in sharing them with you if we can get pass the communication hurdle we are having. Yes, I’ve read the 2016 book of his. I have about 20 pages of notes just from the 2nd chapter of his wild claim he makes on the Gospels names supposedly weren’t added later after all. His book wouldn’t ever pass any peer reviewed paper on such a matter, but I realize it was meant for popular writing.
Taking all of his works as a whole, it’s actually a very big deal if he is supposed to be the same Jesus that the Gospel writers are talking about. I don’t know of any mainstream scholarship that doesn’t address this.
Non sequitur. Connect the dots, he said, at least at the time (#25), the Resurrection was pretty convincing to him in proving his divinity. I wanted to know what else. There is nothing that has to be divine about anyone being able to do such things as that.
Why do you think it is safe to assume this? What scholarly thesis puts out that any interpretations other than your own must have come from the 19th century or later?
edited to add: What kind of access do you have that allows you to find this website but not do a search?
Here’s how it is interpreted:
*The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.
A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man” then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.” It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean “Second Coming” that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18).vi*
That is one interpretation, but not close to being the only one.
That’s true.
I’m being genuine. My wife and I studied together and came into the Church together - both of us lifelong Protestants. We found that the Protestant claims lacked credibility.
What I mean is that Jesus’ most impressive miracle is clearly his resurrection from the dead. If he had stayed dead, all or most of his other alleged miracles could be fairly easily explained away, or else be simply unbelievable. Rising from the dead under your own power undoubtedly means that there is something different about you. We call that divinity, and Jesus claimed divinity prior to his crucifixion. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then his claims to divinity should be taken seriously.
But wouldn’t claims that the Gospel names were added later be just as much of a wild claim, since there doesn’t seem to exist any such unnamed transcripts?
The Catholic Church has been analyzing Paul’s letters for almost 2,000 years, and they don’t seem to have a problem with this alleged “two Jesuses”.
Thank you.