Hammster, look at one verse you quoted and allow me to give you some advice. Whatevere you do, never built a doctrine upon a verse out of context or without comparing it with the rest of Scripture. I will show you why. We can see that you have NOT compared Mark 8:12 with Luke:
Luk 11:29-30
(29) And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say,
This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and
there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
(30) For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites,
so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Since you have failed to explain the verse you quoted, so I will explain for all readers to get an idea of how we are to understand what Christ really talked about. Ready?
By a sound, consistent, harmonious, logical reading of the text, in context, and in full agreement with all that He said. That He was
a sign to that family or generation of vipers. A sign that He is the prophesied Messiah and that the Kingdom had come. Let me ask you a question. How do you explain Christ saying in one verse to one contemporary generation that
there will be no sign given, and yet in the
very next verse say
He was a sign to a generation? Contradiction? Not at all.
Luke 11:29-30
- "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
- For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation."
No sign given but ([
ei me], if not or saving) the sign of His death and resurrection. So a sign was given, but that generation that was blinded could not see it, while the disciples and election would see the sign that
was given. One holy and chosen generation receiving the Word of the Spirit who gives it, and the other generation, an evil generation, rejecting it by the spirit of disobedience. Christ says of the sign, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. But to WHAT Generation? The Generation that seeks signs when no sign shall be given? No, the generation who have eyes to see the sign of Jonas as a type of Christ unto the Ninevites. The death and resurrection of Christ is indeed a sign to
His holy generation (1st Peter 2:9), His family, and the chosen children of His Father. An evil and adulterous "family" seeks after signs to support their religion, and
they aren't given signs. Yet Christ says there is indeed a sign given, which is His resurrection (as the Holy Temple) after its destruction. Contradiction? No, not at all--because the evil family or generation are the children of the Devil and they don't see the sign because God has not given them eyes to see. And, like I said before, yet another contemporary and everlasting generation or family does see the sign, as they are the children of God. Again, a portrait of two families or [
genea], but only one generation that recognizes the sign of the resurrection of the Temple in Christ. The destruction and rebuilding is
NOT found in Jewish fables of the 70AD temple or the future rebuilding of physical structures in the middle east, and placement of worldly or political kings, but in spiritual cities, Kingdoms, and Rulers. Selah!
So what seems obvious to one is not always apparent to others, and quite often easily refutable--like the idea of a pretribulation rapture, a reestablished kingdom of middle eastern Israel, the fall of physical temple in 70AD, the postmillennialism's Christianization of the world or the nation of middle eastern Jews bearing fruit again. It may seem obvious in theory, but Scripture is a lot more complicated in practice, especially when one is determined to read into it rather than from it. For example, it seemed "quite obvious" to the Jews that Christ spoke to and said, "
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," that He was referring to the literal Temple. After all, He had just thrown the buyers and sellers out of it and they were asking Him for
a sign that he had the "authority" to do this. It's
in that context that He said "
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Which is why they "responded" saying that this Temple took forty six years to build, and how would Christ build it again in just 3 days? Clearly, the seemingly obvious to them that Christ was speaking about that very literal/physical Temple, was not what Christ was actually speaking about at all. so look beyond what "seems" obvious, or what "appears" right in your own eyes, to what Christ is actually saying. Look to what is actually being addressed, what is correct, consistent, sound, Spiritual and in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
Psalms 12:7
- "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
What single group or contemporary people to what time or generation of man are we preserved from forever? None! Only the generation of the wicked, and "NOT" a one-off contemporary evil group of people at one time. The generation of the wicked that started with Cain and will exist right up until the end, when all things will have been fulfilled. We (the election, or family of faithful Christians) are
all preserved from this evil generation forever. It is clear that the word generation did not mean all of those people were a 40 year span generation of evil in the first century (seriously?!), nor did Christ use the word that way! Likewise, the people over 2000 years ago in Israel were not all a generation that would not be given a sign, nor were all a generation that the blood of abel and the prophets that followed would be required of. Only the generation or family of evil would be given no sign. They are the only generation Christ that Christ prophesied could not escape the damnation of Hell. It didn't mean your group living in a 40 year span after the Cross, it meant that family who are children of the Devil from Cain to last unsaved man on Earth!
So there! Now it is your turn to defend your position on what the verses in Mark, Luke, or even Psalams above are talking about. And please spare us a one-liner or non-scriptural argument.
