Did Jesus promise to return in the 1st cent.?

[Evangelion]

Yes, yes, yes, I already agreed with that.

Your only problem is that it doesn't say he was wrong.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Yes, yes, yes, I already agreed with that.

Your only problem is that it doesn't say he was wrong.

"The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so."

Lewis means here that Jesus made an error by prophesying His return was to be in their generation.

 

[Evangelion]

No, he says nothing of the kind.

Not once does he claim that Jesus prophesied his own return in the generation of those to whom he was speaking - and Lewis specifically refers to this as an apparent error. Lewis does this twice, as I have already demonstrated.

In order to maintain your argument, you have been forced to ignore this simple fact.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Evangelion
No, he says nothing of the kind.

Not once does he claim that Jesus prophesied his own return in the generation of those to whom he was speaking - and Lewis specifically refers to this as an apparent error. Lewis does this twice, as I have already demonstrated.

You are in amazing denial and self contradiction on this.

Lewis writes:

"It [Matthew 24:34] is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement 'But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.' The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side..."


Lewis states plainly that Matthew 24:34 is the "exhibition of error" and that Matt 24:36 is the "confession of ignorance."


So Lewis boldly claims that Matt 24:34 was an exhibition of error by the prophet Jesus. Jesus prophesied an error, according to Lewis.

GW

 

[Evangelion]

But he later qualifies his statement with the word "apparent." He does this twice.

I am taking the text as a whole, while you are simply jumping on the little part that you believe to support your conclusion, and ignoring the rest.

You have yet to address this fact.

 

[GW]

Ev,

You are being dishonest with the Lewis statement. He is not saying that "Jesus appeared to err, but really didn't." He is saying that Christ erred and that this shouldn't shock us, for Christ already told us that he was ignorant of certain things, and that therefore this shows us that the incarnation makes error possible in Christ, and that Jesus demonstrated such ignorance/error for us when he stated that he would return in their generation and was wrong.

That is C.S. Lewis' whole argument.

 

[Jedi]

I really don't think Jesus said or implied that he would return within the first century. In fact, he implied that it would be a while until he came back. In Matthew 24:44, he says that he's going to come when people don't expect it. This seems to imply that he's not going to come right away (when people are expecting his return).

As far as Christ's words about "this generation will not pass away until these things happen," those things really did happen during that generation. Looking through the list of stuff he said would occur, it was largely the persecution of his follows (our good buddies Nero and Domitian helped that to come about). There were also conflicts being spoken of, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So what he said was true.

Luke 9:27 says that people standing there won't pass away until they see the Kingdom of God come (And come it did through Christ's resurrection and the New Covanent). This is supported by John 3:3, where it says that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again (Seems to be talking about salvation being the entrance to the Kingdom of God). Then, of course, the judgment of Revelation seems to portray a much more physical & ultimate coming of God's Kingdom (Revelation 12:10).

Just some food for thought.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Jedi
I really don't think Jesus said or implied that he would return within the first century.

Jedi,

Jesus promised in an explicit and straightforward manner that his apostles would see all those signs come to pass, as well as His return, in their generation:

Matthew 24:33-34
So, YOU too [the apostles], when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say TO YOU [the apostles], this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.



The apostles of our Lord were clearly promised that they would see those signs come to pass as well as His return in their generation. And Christ is not a false prophet. They did see all those signs, and they did witness the return of the Lord within a space of 40 years, one biblical generation.

 

[Jedi]

Jesus promised in an explicit and straightforward manner that his apostles would see all those signs come to pass, as well as His return, in their generation:

Matthew 24:33-34
So, YOU too [the apostles], when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say TO YOU [the apostles], this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Um, yeah, but where does it say in these verses that Jesus will come within 40 years or so? In the verse I provided, he's going to come when no one expect him, which would imply his return to be later rather than sooner.

Matthew 24:14, which reads: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" implies a much later date for the coming of Christ and the end of the world. Not only that, but Christ's coming will be extremely evident in that "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:27). There's also multiple ways to take the words "This generation." It could be the generation that was living while Jesus was on earth, or the generation that was living when these signs began to occur. If the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke these words, "generation" is used in its ordinary sense of a normal life span. All these things were fulfilled in a preliminary sense in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. If the reference is to the second coming of Christ, "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a race, who were promised existed to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus ahd a mistaken notion that he was going to return immediately (From the NIV Study Bible).

The apostles of our Lord were clearly promised that they would see those signs come to pass as well as His return in their generation.

"as well as His return?" Where? Where does Christ say he will return within their (the people he's talking to) lifetimes?

And Christ is not a false prophet. They did see all those signs, and they did witness the return of the Lord within a space of 40 years, one biblical generation.

Woah, the Lord returned? Gosh, the rapture happened, and I missed it. It's all downhill from here... :o

 

[GW]

Jedi,

Please, study Matthew 24:33-34 very closely. It plainly says that the apostles would witness all those signs come to pass, and so recognize when His return was at their door, all within their generation.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Jedi


As far as Christ's words about "this generation will not pass away until these things happen," those things really did happen during that generation. Looking through the list of stuff he said would occur, it was largely the persecution of his follows (our good buddies Nero and Domitian helped that to come about). There were also conflicts being spoken of, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So what he said was true.

Funny, when I look through the list of "stuff" that Jesus said His apostles would witness within their generation, it includes the Abomination of Desolation, Gospel preached to all the world, the great tribulation, and the sign of the son of man in heaven. Then Jesus promised that immediatly after the apostles witnessed all these things, they would see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to reward every man.

Do you still think what he said was true?     I do.

Luke 9:27 says that people standing there won't pass away until they see the Kingdom of God come (And come it did through Christ's resurrection and the New Covanent). This is supported by John 3:3, where it says that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again (Seems to be talking about salvation being the entrance to the Kingdom of God). Then, of course, the judgment of Revelation seems to portray a much more physical & ultimate coming of God's Kingdom (Revelation 12:10).

Just some food for thought.

Actually, Luke 9:27 taken in it's direct context with verse 26, Jesus says some of them wouldn't taste death until they saw the son of man coming in his kingdom to reward every man. This did not happen at Christs resurrection nor at pentacost.

The Judgement language of Revelation is the exact language the OT prophets used to describe Jehovah's many "comings" in Judgement of OT times.

It is spoken of as great physical disturbances in the cosmos, but referrs to commotions of nations, principalities and peoples.

The Biblical "end times" are almost 2000 years behind us.

 

[Jedi]

Please, study Matthew 24:33-34 very closely. It plainly says that the apostles would witness all those signs come to pass, and so recognize when His return was at their door, all within their generation.

Perhaps you should reread my post. I already address the assertion that Jesus had to be claiming that those he was talking to would witness all these things he was talking about.

Then Jesus promised that immediatly[sic] after the apostles witnessed all these things, they would see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to reward every man.

Where does it say “the apostles?” When it says this “generation,” it could also be translated as “race.” I also find it interesting how it also says that “immediately after the distress of those days ‘the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken’” (Matthew 24:29). Have the stars fallen from the sky? If so, why are they still up there when I look up at them? It would seem, then, that the events being spoken of did not happen yet.

Actually, Luke 9:27 taken in it's direct context with verse 26, Jesus says some of them wouldn't taste death until they saw the son of man coming in his kingdom to reward every man. This did not happen at Christs[sic] resurrection nor at pentacost[sic].

Verse 26 is talking about the second coming and judgment, but verse 27 isn’t referring to 26, but is referring to the coming of the Kingdom (i.e. the new covenant and establishment of the church).

The Biblical "end times" are almost 2000 years behind us.

I beg to differ. Stars haven’t fallen from the sky (Matthew 24:29), the sun hasn’t turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon hasn’t turned to blood red, and the stars in the sky haven’t fallen to earth (Revelation 6:12-13). Has every living thing in the sea died (Revelation 16:3)? We are living in the end times, but the end is yet to come.

 

[Evangelion]

GW -

You are being dishonest with the Lewis statement.

No, I'm being 100% honest, and I'm still waiting for you to address Lewis' carefully qualified statements.

He is not saying that "Jesus appeared to err, but really didn't."

Yes, he is. He refers to it twice as an apparent error.

Why won't you address this fact?

He is saying that Christ erred and that this shouldn't shock us, for Christ already told us that he was ignorant of certain things, and that therefore this shows us that the incarnation makes error possible in Christ, and that Jesus demonstrated such ignorance/error for us when he stated that he would return in their generation and was wrong.

Where does he say this?

Why won't you address the fact that he referred to the alleged error as "apparent", twice in the same paragraph?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Jedi

Where does it say “the apostles?” When it says this “generation,” it could also be translated as “race.” I also find it interesting how it also says that “immediately after the distress of those days ‘the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken’” (Matthew 24:29). Have the stars fallen from the sky? If so, why are they still up there when I look up at them? It would seem, then, that the events being spoken of did not happen yet.

Ok Jedi, I'll go slow just to be sure you can follow.

Generation (Greek Genea) NEVER means RACE in scripture. NEVER EVER EVER. Not even once. It ALWAYS means the sum of those living at the same time, and Scripture itself confines a Generation to approx. 41 years.(Matt 1:17)

I challenge you to search every single use of Generation (Greek Genea) in scriptutre and try to interprate it as RACE. It can't be done, but go ahead and try, post the verses here you think mean race. Good luck!

The entire "olivet discourse" is spoken by Jesus to the apostles and Jesus uses the personal pronoun "you" and "your" throughout the discourse. At no time in the discourse is he not speaking to the apostles, but to some far removed peoples (you and me).

Jesus told His apostles that when THEY SAW the Abomination of Desolation, THEY should flee Jerusalem. He was not telling you and me to flee Jerusalem when WE see it.

Now as for the stars falling etc... Have you ever read the OT? This language is rampant throughout and speaks of Judgements against Nations, not the physical universe. Observe:

Isaiah 13:1 (NKJV) The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

Jedi, In this chapter God is talking about the judgement that is to fall upon Babylon. The word burden is the Hebrew word massa', (mas-saw') an utterance, chiefly a doom. This introduction sets the stage for the subject matter in this chapter and if we forget this, our interpretations of Isaiah 13 can go just about anywhere our imagination wants to go. This is not an oracle against the universe or world but against the nation of Babylon.

Isaiah 13:6 (NKJV) Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Isaiah 13:9-13 (NKJV) Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.

Now remember Jedi, he is speaking about the destruction of Babylon but it sounds like world wide destruction. The terminology of a context cannot be expanded beyond the scope of the subject under discussion. The spectrum of language surely cannot go outside the land of Babylon. If you were a Babylonian and Babylon was destroyed would it seem like the world was destroyed? Yes! Your world would be destroyed.

Isaiah 13:17 (NKJV) "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it.

Jedi, This is an historical event that took place in 539 BC. When the Medes destroyed Babylon the Babylonian world came to an end. This destruction is said in verse 6 to be from the Almighty, and the Medes constitute the means that God uses to accomplish this task. The physical heaven and earth were still in tact, but for Babylon they had collapsed. This is apocalyptic language. This is the way the Bible discusses the fall of a nation.

Jedi, If I use your interpratation of Matt 24:29 to the IDENTICAL LANGUAGE found in Isaiah 13, then you and I don't exist, becuase according to scripture, the world ended in 539 BC!

The Bible interprates itself Jedi, and your interpratation of the "Stars falling" language in Matt 24 is in direct conflict with precident set in the OT for this kind of language.

Bring your understanding back in line with scripture.

Verse 26 is talking about the second coming and judgment, but verse 27 isn’t referring to 26, but is referring to the coming of the Kingdom (i.e. the new covenant and establishment of the church).

Forgive my frankness here Jedi, but PROVE IT. Prove from scripture that Jesus changes topics between verse 26 & 27. Where EXACTLY does the Bible teach you this? 

I beg to differ. Stars haven’t fallen from the sky (Matthew 24:29), the sun hasn’t turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon hasn’t turned to blood red, and the stars in the sky haven’t fallen to earth (Revelation 6:12-13). Has every living thing in the sea died (Revelation 16:3)? We are living in the end times, but the end is yet to come.

Again, Scriptural precident is in direct conflict with you here.

Please show from scripture proof that we today are living in the "Last days".

The Bible clearly teaches that it was in fact the Apostles themselves who were living in the "Last Days". (Heb 1:1-2,Heb 9:26,1 Peter 1:20,1 Cor. 10:11,James 5:1-3,1John 2:18, Hebrews 10:37, Acts 2:16-17)

 

[Jedi]

Ok Jedi, I'll go slow just to be sure you can follow.

I’ll grant you the same favor.

Generation (Greek Genea) NEVER means RACE in scripture. NEVER EVER EVER. Not even once. It ALWAYS means the sum of those living at the same time, and Scripture itself confines a Generation to approx. 41 years.(Matt 1:17)

Interestingly enough, the word being used here in Matthew 1:17 is “yeveai,” while the word being used in Matthew 24:34 is “yevea.” Similar, but different. And “yevea” can also mean “race" or perhaps "nation."

I challenge you to search every single use of Generation (Greek Genea) in scriptutre[sic] and try to interprate[sic] it as RACE. It can't be done, but go ahead and try, post the verses here you think mean race. Good luck!

On the other hand, you could go to the Greek text and look at the words yourself. These aren’t the exact same words here. Not only that, but how about you do a search on a search engine and see if you can't find any footnotes telling you that the word “generation” in this instance can also be “race” or “nation.” I know the NIV Study Bible has it, and the Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English Bible has it as well.

The entire "olivet[sic] discourse" is spoken by Jesus to the apostles and Jesus uses the personal pronoun "you" and "your" throughout the discourse. At no time in the discourse is he not speaking to the apostles, but to some far removed peoples (you and me).

Ah, but is this necessarily true? Is he saying “You” as in reference to those who are in his immediate proximity, or “you” as in their race of people/his followers? I’m sure Christ knew that his words would be recorded, and so it would seem nonsensical for him to totally omit his future audience, or his other followers at the time by not speaking generally.

Jesus told His apostles that when THEY SAW the Abomination of Desolation, THEY should flee Jerusalem. He was not telling you and me to flee Jerusalem when WE see it.

“They?” Tell me where it specifically says “apostles,” and I’ll be happy. Jesus seems to be speaking to his followers in general when he says “you,” since it wasn’t only the apostles who saw the Abomination of Desolation and fled Jerusalem.

Jedi, If I use your interpratation[sic] of Matt 24:29 to the IDENTICAL LANGUAGE found in Isaiah 13, then you and I don't exist, becuase[sic] according to scripture, the world ended in 539 BC!

Fair enough.

Forgive my frankness here Jedi, but PROVE IT. Prove from scripture that Jesus changes topics between verse 26 & 27. Where EXACTLY does the Bible teach you this?

In direct retaliation, I could just say “Disprove it,” and we’d be at an impasse. The problem is that in order to say differently, you’d have to say that scripture is saying something it’s not. Luke 9:26 is talking about the second coming of Christ (such an understanding is supported by Christ referring to the time when he comes “in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” and is talking about being ashamed of those who were ashamed of Him). Verse 27, in contrast, starts talking about the coming of the Kingdom by saying, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” Each verse is talking about different events.

Again, Scriptural precident[sic] is in direct conflict with you here.

I don’t think so.

Please show from scripture proof that we today are living in the "Last days".

The Bible clearly teaches that it was in fact the Apostles themselves who were living in the "Last Days". (Heb 1:1-2,Heb 9:26,1 Peter 1:20,1 Cor. 10:11,James 5:1-3,1John 2:18, Hebrews 10:37, Acts 2:16-17)

And unless you can show me that the “last days” have ended between then and now, it would be safe to conclude that we are still living in the “last days” just as they were.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Jedi

Interestingly enough, the word being used here in Matthew 1:17 is “yeveai,” while the word being used in Matthew 24:34 is “yevea.” Similar, but different. And “yevea” can also mean “race" or perhaps "nation."

According to strongs, the same geeek word "Genea" is used for both, although Matt 1:17 renders it plural "Generations".

Perhaps you'd like to list some of the other verses you believe "Genea" can be properly translated as "Race". I'd be most interested in the Biblical precident that supports your claim.

Ah, but is this necessarily true? Is he saying “You” as in reference to those who are in his immediate proximity, or “you” as in their race of people/his followers? I’m sure Christ knew that his words would be recorded, and so it would seem nonsensical for him to totally omit his future audience, or his other followers at the time by not speaking generally.

1 Phliilppians 2:19

"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly so I may be encouraged when I know your state"

Jedi, are you expecting Timothy's soon arrival to YOU? Surely when the Holy spirit inspired Paul to write these words, He knew his words would be recorded so it would seem nonsensical to omit his future audience, right?

“They?” Tell me where it specifically says “apostles,” and I’ll be happy. Jesus seems to be speaking to his followers in general when he says “you,” since it wasn’t only the apostles who saw the Abomination of Desolation and fled Jerusalem.

As for where it says "the apostles", Matt 24:3.

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Jedi, the disciples asked Him, and Jesus answered using the personal pronoun YOU throughout. Any group of people that Matt 24 pertains to MUST INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL RECIEVERS, or it is meaningless to everyone.


 Now, it appears you believe the AoD actually took place in the 1st century. Most futurists disagree, and believe it is yet to take place.

Perhaps you could clarify what in Matt 24 you believe was fulfilled then, and what you believe still awaits fulfillment, so I'm not claiming you believe something you  don't.

In direct retaliation, I could just say “Disprove it,” and we’d be at an impasse. The problem is that in order to say differently, you’d have to say that scripture is saying something it’s not. Luke 9:26 is talking about the second coming of Christ (such an understanding is supported by Christ referring to the time when he comes “in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” and is talking about being ashamed of those who were ashamed of Him). Verse 27, in contrast, starts talking about the coming of the Kingdom by saying, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” Each verse is talking about different events.

Look at the paralell account and you get a clear picture:

Matt 16:27-28

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

There is no contextually honest way to say the "Son of Man coming" in verse 27 is a completely different "Coming' than the "Son of Man coming" of verse 28.

Jesus is speaking of the same event, and He says some of them would live to see it. I believe Him

And unless you can show me that the “last days” have ended between then and now, it would be safe to conclude that we are still living in the “last days” just as they were.

Ok, just to be sure before I tackle this one, is it truely your contention that the Biblical Last Days began in the 1st century, and have continued ever since?

Is there anything in particular that would prevent you from asserting that the "Last Days" will continue for another 2000 years?


Thanks in Christ. P70
 

 

[Jedi]

According to strongs, the same geeek[sic] word "Genea" is used for both, although Matt 1:17 renders it plural "Generations".

Perhaps you'd like to list some of the other verses you believe "Genea" can be properly translated as "Race". I'd be most interested in the Biblical precident[sic] that supports your claim.

Evidently, some people feel that the Greek word used here has more than one reference, and doesn’t strictly mean “generation.” It would seem that the definition of “Genea” is “The whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period” according to an elaboration in the AMP (Amplified Bible). Given this, it very could mean “generation” or “race” or “nation” since all fit the definition. There are also footnotes in some Bibles telling readers of this alternate translation (“or race”), and I know the WE (Worldwide English) translates it as “the people who are living then” which speaks of it as the “generation” in existence when these events occurred.

1 Phliilppians[sic] 2:19

"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly so I may be encouraged when I know your state"

Jedi, are you expecting Timothy's soon arrival to YOU? Surely when the Holy spirit inspired Paul to write these words, He knew his words would be recorded so it would seem nonsensical to omit his future audience, right?

Please, tell me you’re joking. First of all, this is no longer Jesus talking to an audience, but Paul writing to a specifically addressed congregation ("To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi" - 1:1) a letter. The entire context is different.

As for where it says "the apostles", Matt 24:3.

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Jedi, the disciples asked Him, and Jesus answered using the personal pronoun YOU throughout. Any group of people that Matt 24 pertains to MUST INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL RECIEVERS, or it is meaningless to everyone.

*Sigh* The apostles are included even if the “you” being used was to refer to all of Christ’s followers (which the rest of his speech implies, since, like I said, the apostles weren’t the only followers of Christ to flee Jerusalem).

Now, it appears you believe the AoD actually took place in the 1st century. Most futurists disagree, and believe it is yet to take place.

AoD? What the?

Perhaps you could clarify what in Matt 24 you believe was fulfilled then, and what you believe still awaits fulfillment, so I'm not claiming you believe something you don't.

Like I said before, there are numerous ways to take this passage. If the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke these words, "generation" is used in the sense of a normal life span. All these things were fulfilled in a preliminary sense in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. If the reference is to the second coming of Christ (as is probably the case), "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a race, who were promised existed to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus had a mistaken notion that he was going to return immediately. To believe that Christ preached things that were wrong throws into question all else that he preached, as well as whether or not he was the “perfect sacrifice” needed for salvation.

Ok, just to be sure before I tackle this one, is it truely[sic] your contention that the Biblical Last Days began in the 1st century, and have continued ever since?

Unless I see evidence to the contrary, that’s where my stance is.

Is there anything in particular that would prevent you from asserting that the "Last Days" will continue for another 2000 years?

Not unless Jesus comes back and the world ends.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Jedi
Evidently, some people feel that the Greek word used here has more than one reference, and doesn’t strictly mean “generation.” It would seem that the definition of “Genea” is “The whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period” according to an elaboration in the AMP (Amplified Bible). Given this, it very could mean “generation” or “race” or “nation” since all fit the definition. There are also footnotes in some Bibles telling readers of this alternate translation (“or race”), and I know the WE (Worldwide English) translates it as “the people who are living then” which speaks of it as the “generation” in existence when these events occurred.[/b

Again, could you provide supporting verses where "genea" can be properly translated as "Race"? remember, Usage outweighs etymology, meaning, whatever the dictionary definition of a word is, it's Biblical usage defines it's Biblical definition.

Please list 2 or 3 supporting scriptures that use "Genea" to mean "race".

(Note: There is no verifiable "Jewish race" today anyway, but I'll humor you for now....)

Please, tell me you’re joking. First of all, this is no longer Jesus talking to an audience, but Paul writing to a specifically addressed congregation ("To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi" - 1:1) a letter. The entire context is different.

Huh? How was Jesus not specifically addressing His disciples?

*Sigh* The apostles are included even if the “you” being used was to refer to all of Christ’s followers (which the rest of his speech implies, since, like I said, the apostles weren’t the only followers of Christ to flee Jerusalem).

Right, all of Christs followers of that generation, including the disciples. Any fulfillment that excludes the disciples as primary participants is untenable.

AoD? What the?

Sorry, AoD = Abomination of Desolation. You mentioned it came to pass in the 1st century. What was it?

Like I said before, there are numerous ways to take this passage. If the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke these words, "generation" is used in the sense of a normal life span. All these things were fulfilled in a preliminary sense in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. If the reference is to the second coming of Christ (as is probably the case), "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a race, who were promised existed to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus had a mistaken notion that he was going to return immediately. To believe that Christ preached things that were wrong throws into question all else that he preached, as well as whether or not he was the “perfect sacrifice” needed for salvation.

I contend the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the end of the Jewish age, at the parousia of Christ.
I do not believe Christ was wrong. I believe He returned, on time, as promised, before some of them who 1st recieved the promise had died.

Are the Last days lasting 2000 years and counting?
Stay tuned...this might even require a seperate thread.........
P70

 

[armothe]

Originally posted by Jedi
Please, tell me you’re joking. First of all, this is no longer Jesus talking to an audience, but Paul writing to a specifically addressed congregation ("To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi" - 1:1) a letter. The entire context is different.

 

Using this argument, however; it would seem more likely that Paul's letter to a greater/larger body of Christians has more application to us today, than Christ's private conversation with His 12 disciples.

I'm not following your logic on this one...

-A

 

[Jedi]

Again, could you provide supporting verses where "genea" can be properly translated as "Race"? remember,[sic] Usage outweighs etymology, meaning, whatever the dictionary definition of a word is, it's Biblical usage defines it's Biblical definition.

That’s not necessarily true. Merely because the Bible doesn’t use a word in particular way doesn’t mean it can’t be used in that given way.

Please list 2 or 3 supporting scriptures that use "Genea" to mean "race".

Luke 11:50 and Luke 11:51 seems to support this translation when it reads, “Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all” (NIV). Seems to me it would make more sense if “generation” was taken as “race” or “nation.”

(Note: There is no verifiable "Jewish race" today anyway, but I'll humor you for now....)

There aren’t any Jewish people? Gosh, I wonder who the people in Israel are. For someone to be Jewish, they have to be verified? How do you verify someone’s lineage except for taking them up on their word? It’d be too much of a pain in the butt to go track down all their dead relatives and try to trace them back to king David or someone of historical significance that proves they’re Jewish.

Huh? How was Jesus not specifically addressing His disciples?

He doesn’t say “I’m specifically addressing the apostles” like Paul was with the church in Philippi. When they said “tell us,” you’re taking it as “tell us as your apostles,” while that’s not the only way it could be taken. Jesus could be responding as telling them as his followers (which would include the apostles, but also include all of those who have been and will be following him).

Right, all of Christs[sic] followers of that generation, including the disciples. Any fulfillment that excludes the disciples as primary participants is untenable.

Again, the disciples are not being excluded – they are included by Jesus responding with the “you” as a reference to all followers (and the disciples being leaders of the followers, it would follow that they should pay special attention). There’s no reason to limit his “you” to the followers of that generation, since they apply to followers everywhere.

Sorry, AoD = Abomination of Desolation. You mentioned it came to pass in the 1st century. What was it?

I mentioned that, if indeed the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke these words, "generation" is used in the sense of a normal life span. All these things were fulfilled in a preliminary sense in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. If the reference is to the second coming of Christ (as is probably the case), "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a race, who were promised existed to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus had a mistaken notion that he was going to return immediately.

I do not believe Christ was wrong. I believe He returned, on time, as promised, before some of them who 1st recieved[sic] the promise had died.

Ah, so this is what the rub is. You think the second coming has already happened. The problem with this, though, is that Christ described it as something that would be unmistakable and that everyone would see it “just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:27). I’d find it extremely odd that all the historians would omit such an event as this, considering how much glorious interaction would be going on (cf. Luke 9:26).

Are the Last days lasting 2000 years and counting?
Stay tuned...this might even require a seperate[sic] thread.........

Like I said, unless I see some sort of evidence that the Last Days ended before now (which would be a very curious thing to be living beyond the “last days.” What would it be now? The “very last days?” ), yep.

Using this argument, however; it would seem more likely that Paul's letter to a greater/larger body of Christians has more application to us today, than Christ's private conversation with His 12 disciples.

I'm not following your logic on this one...

It does have application to us, but it was not addressed to the church in general, but to the church at Philippi. This is why certain names are mentioned and thanksgiving offered, since it is much more personal than general (especially Philippi, which seems to be Paul's favorite church). From learning what Paul said to the churches in his time, we know what's expected of us as a church today.