Did Jesus teach he would be back in the first century?

[All Souls]

Excuse me for horning in, but Oz was not presenting a false dilemma. A false dilemma is to introduce an option not previously discussed, and hold it up as the "either/or" solution to the stated problem.

Oz provided lexical evidence of the proper translation of the word genea, as I had done before him. That is not logical in nature, but evidentiary. It is not a situation that requires conjecture or logic to resolve, but is a finite point that is defined in absolutes. There is no dilemma. The word is known, defined, and can be exegeted within its context.

You're making up an excuse for not accepting the truth of the passage. And Jesus is not "wrong." He never is wrong.

The fallacy of the false dilemma is a fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available. This is done in classic style by the author Oz quoted. The author refused to deal with all the meanings available owing to his own prejudice.

 

[OzSpen]

Excuse me for horning in, but Oz was not presenting a false dilemma. A false dilemma is to introduce an option not previously discussed, and hold it up as the "either/or" solution to the stated problem.

Oz provided lexical evidence of the proper translation of the word genea, as I had done before him. That is not logical in nature, but evidentiary. It is not a situation that requires conjecture or logic to resolve, but is a finite point that is defined in absolutes. There is no dilemma. The word is known, defined, and can be exegeted within its context.

You're making up an excuse for not accepting the truth of the passage. And Jesus is not "wrong." He never is wrong.

 

[All Souls]

I have not committed the False Dilemma Fallacy, as described in this definition of the fallacy

Yet you have according to this one: False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

 

[All Souls]

We do need to ask what γενεας means; there are various options as we find here. Could Jesus have used γενεας to mean those alive at the time? Yes, we ought not rule such a view out axiomatically.

 

[Matt Faith]

I do not believe Jesus could ever be wrong, that much I know.

 

[All Souls]

Why?

 

[Matt Faith]

I believe the skeptics that Matt is referring to are general critics of the Christian faith, such atheists and agnostics. This argument sometimes comes up in debates, with people arguing that Jesus failed in his prophecy of when he would return.

The verse states: "Verily I say unto you, THIS generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

If you take the verse alone without the context of the rest of the verses, it can be interpreted that Jesus is saying: "THIS generation of people living right now.”

BUT because, this is part of larger discourse with Jesus answering a series of 3 questions, I believe that Jesus meant "THIS generation I just mentioned" which makes more sense in the context of all of the verses together.

This is most likely meaning of the verse. Also, does the parable of the fig tree tie into this generation Jesus was speaking of?

 

[Matt Faith]

Why?

I believe Jesus was/is who he said he was/is, the Son of God. I believe the bible.

 

[All Souls]

I believe Jesus was who he said he was, the Son of God. I believe the bible.

As do I, but I also think Jesus was wrong in his prediction.

 

[Matt Faith]

As do I, but I also think Jesus was wrong in his prediction.

you are entitled to your opinion. C.S. Lewis also thought he made a mistake. I just think that if Jesus did not know something, he would have said it. For example he admitted he did not know the day or hour of his return.

 

[All Souls]

Fair enough.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

The fallacy of the false dilemma is a fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available. This is done in classic style by the author Oz quoted. The author refused to deal with all the meanings available owing to his own prejudice.

First, that is not the definition of a false dilemma fallacy.

Two, you cannot claim a logical fallacy in a situation that is not logical in nature, but evidentiary.'

That you continue to claim fallacy in a non-logical discussion -- a discussion that requires not logical disciplines but intellectual understanding -- speaks clearly to your intent to misinterpret deliberately, rather than having an inability to grasp the passage's meaning.

As do I, but I also think Jesus was wrong in his prediction.

And this pretty much proves your bent. You realize, of course, you have claimed, with this statement, that God made a mistake?

 

[All Souls]

First, that is not the definition of a false dilemma fallacy.

It is. A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

 

[OzSpen]

The fallacy of the false dilemma is a fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available. This is done in classic style by the author Oz quoted. The author refused to deal with all the meanings available owing to his own prejudice.

I provided a definition of the false dilemma fallacy from a fallacy website and it does not agree with your definition. I go with the fallacy definition I gave you. Neither Gleason Archer nor OzSpen used the false dilemma fallacy. We provided exegesis of Greek text meanings. You don't agree with those chosen, but that doesn't mean I or Archer created a false dilemma. We dealt with the exegetical meaning of 'genea'. It is an exegetical hermeneutical issu that causes our differences of understanding and not a logical flaw.

This we know: The Almighty God of Scripture does not lie. The problem is with our imperfect interpretations.

 

[Bluelion]

Why?

Jesus is and always was perfect there for he could not make a mistake.

 

[All Souls]

To state that Jesus 'in his human nature made a mistake' (as you have said) is to state or infer that Jesus sinned in his human nature.

You're confusing human finitude with sin, to be mistaken is not a sin.

 

[All Souls]

I provided a definition of the false dilemma fallacy from a fallacy website and it does not agree with your definition. I go with the fallacy definition I gave you. Neither Gleason Archer nor OzSpen used the false dilemma fallacy. We provided exegesis of Greek text meanings. You don't agree with those chosen, but that doesn't mean I or Archer created a false dilemma. We dealt with the exegetical meaning of 'genea'. It is an exegetical hermeneutical issu that causes our differences of understanding and not a logical flaw.

This we know: The Almighty God of Scripture does not lie. The problem is with our imperfect interpretations.

Archer is guilty of the fallacy Argument from (personal) incredulity. He rules out the obvious meaning in context because of his presupposition that Jesus could not make a mistake.

 

[OzSpen]

You're confusing human finitude with sin, to be mistaken is not a sin.

To be mistaken is to make an error. To make an error is to violate a rule, i.e. it means to sin. Thus you are identifying Jesus as a sinner, which is unorthodox theology.

 

[OzSpen]

Archer is guilty of the fallacy Argument from (personal) incredulity. He rules out the obvious meaning in context because of his presupposition that Jesus could not make a mistake.

Jesus could not make a mistake because he could not sin. I provided this biblical evidence in #36. It is not a presupposition of mine. It is a demonstration of what I believe, based on the evidence. I provided this evidence at #36 that demonstrates that Jesus could not make a mistake:

The angel Gabriel said to Mary, 'the child to be born will be called holy - the Son of God' (Lk 1:35 ESV). So this child, this human being to be born to Mary - Jesus - was holy and the Son of God. To state that Jesus 'in his human nature made a mistake' (as you have said) is to state or infer that Jesus sinned in his human nature. This is an unorthodox position that should only be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology directory of CF.

Of Jesus, these verses state:

• 'In him is no sin' (1 Jn 3:5);
• Paul stated of Christ that he was the one 'who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21).

You are violating orthodox Christianity by accusing Jesus of making a mistake, thus making him a sinner.

 

[All Souls]

Jesus could not make a mistake because he could not sin.

As I noted above, you're confusing human finitude with sin, to be mistaken is not a sin.