• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

This generation

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That’s not an answer. That’s a deflection.
Okay. The answer is because it makes no sense to put so much trust in the interpretation of a given verse by commentators that you disagree with on other things.

How do you trust that they are right about one thing when you think they are wrong about other things? How does that make sense exactly? Do you trust them for any other reason than that they happen to agree with you on one particular thing?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No.

Are these two separate events?

Matthew 24:27 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 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Are these two separate events?

Matthew 24:27 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 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Yes.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Why are you asking me this? I've already given my understanding of that verse multiple times in this thread. The meaning there is that this type of people, which He called sinful, wicked and adulterous, would not pass away until all the things He talked about were fulfilled.

Others would say He was using the definition of the word as referring to a race of people which would mean He was saying this Jewish race would not pass away until those things He had talked about were fulfilled. I find that to be a plausible interpretation as well even though that's not my interpretation. I bring that up just to show that the word clearly has more than one definition, so that has to be taken into account.
I think the best way to determine it’s meaning is to see how that person has used it in the past. It’s better than trying to force a meaning onto the text.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No, really? I thought it was still there. Come on. Obviously, Jesus talked about more than just the destruction of the temple and you know that.
Yes, He talked about what to look for so that the hearers could flee to the hills.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Okay. The answer is because it makes no sense to put so much trust in the interpretation of a given verse by commentators that you disagree with on other things.

How do you trust that they are right about one thing when you think they are wrong about other things? How does that make sense exactly? Do you trust them for any other reason than that they happen to agree with you on one particular thing?
I read other commentators to see how they see things. Just like I read your posts to see how you see things.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wrong answer. There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27 is a different coming of the Son of man that is described in Matthew 24:37-39 and in Matthew 25:31-46. This is doctrinal bias at its worst, in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, He talked about what to look for so that the hearers could flee to the hills.
And He didn't talk about anything else besides that? Are you just playing a game here? If so, I'm not interested.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the best way to determine it’s meaning is to see how that person has used it in the past. It’s better than trying to force a meaning onto the text.
I agree. Don't act like I said otherwise. I already have said He used it the same way in other places like Matthew 23:36.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I read other commentators to see how they see things. Just like I read your posts to see how you see things.
I'm completely fine with that. I do that occasionally as well. But, that isn't the issue. The issue is that you put so much trust in other commentators interpretations of one particular thing even though you disagree with them on other things. That makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Wrong answer. There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27 is a different coming of the Son of man that is described in Matthew 24:37-39 and in Matthew 25:31-46. This is doctrinal bias at its worst, in my opinion.
What if one is describing the judgment on Israel for rejecting her Messiah, and one is the final judgment of the world?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
And He didn't talk about anything else besides that? Are you just playing a game here? If so, I'm not interested.
In regards to the judgement of Israel, there’s more. It really goes back to chapter 21.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I agree. Don't act like I said otherwise. I already have said He used it the same way in other places like Matthew 23:36.
Which was in reference to His current audience. So no need to change in the next chapter.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I'm completely fine with that. I do that occasionally as well. But, that isn't the issue. The issue is that you put so much trust in other commentators interpretations of one particular thing even though you disagree with them on other things. That makes no sense.
I never said that.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,725
2,194
indiana
✟342,497.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I'm specifying what type of "genea" I'm talking about. A generation (Greek: genea) can also refer to an age, a type of people or a race or nation of people. You've been told this several times now in this thread and you're still not getting that the word has more than one definition? This is a waste of my time. Let me know when you're ready to at least acknowledge that the word "genea" has more than one meaning and then maybe we can continue the discussion.

Your not giving the full definitions of your “other examples”.

in regards to “age” it means time occupied by a generation

(an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years)- thayers.

In regards to “men of same stock”. It means:

1.) those of a successive genealogy as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”.

2.) race of men with similar characteristics, such as the “wicked generation that asked Jesus for a sign.”

Now let’s look at where thayers puts the definition of genea in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34:

the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήνδέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage). Thayers

All the definitions include those living at the same time. The only definitions of genea that include through time or history is when genea is plural as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”, or written as “generation to generation”.

I honestly have no idea where you are getting your definitions from or if you are just misunderstanding the definitions provided?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What if one is describing the judgment on Israel for rejecting her Messiah, and one is the final judgment of the world?
Where did Jesus make that distinction? The coming of the Son of man is the coming of the Son of man. To think that He talked about two comings of the Son of man makes no sense at all.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,405
27,058
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,965,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Where did Jesus make that distinction? The coming of the Son of man is the coming of the Son of man. To think that He talked about two comings of the Son of man makes no sense at all.
You mean it makes no sense to you.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your not giving the full definitions of your “other examples”.

in regards to “age” it means time occupied by a generation

(an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years)- thayers.

In regards to “men of same stock”. It means:

1.) those of a successive genealogy as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”.

2.) race of men with similar characteristics, such as the “wicked generation that asked Jesus for a sign.”

Now let’s look at where thayers puts the definition of genea in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34:

the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήνδέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage). Thayers

All the definitions include those living at the same time. The only definitions of genea that include through time or history is when genea is plural as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”, or written as “generation to generation”.

I honestly have no idea where you are getting your definitions from or if you are just misunderstanding the definitions provided?
I have told you what source I use before, but you obviously forgot. I use blueletterible.org and use Strong's Greek Lexicon.

When I go to the information for the word "genea" part of what I see is this:

upload_2022-4-14_13-41-9.png

So, I take it to mean something similar to definition 2B above. Yes, Jesus talked about destruction that would come upon those He was talking to in Matthew 23:36, but He was not using the word "genea" in terms of an age or time period of 40 years or so, He was using it to describe a type of people who were "wicked and adulterous" (Matt 12:39) and "sinful" (Mark 8:38).

The fact that they even were being held responsible for the blood of Abel (Matt 23:36) shows that Jesus didn't just have Jews in mind there even though He did talk about an event that would destroy the Jews who were that type of people (which occurred in 70 AD). In Matthew 24:34, He was saying this type of people (wicked, adulterous, sinful) would not pass away until all the things He spoke about were fulfilled. And then, in the next verse He said heaven and earth would pass away. He didn't just say that for nothing. I believe He said that to indicate that this generation would pass away when heaven and earth pass away. And then He said that no one knows the day or hour it will happen. I have no idea how Matthew 24:36 can possibly apply to what happened in 70 AD. That verse relates to him coming like a thief in the night when no one expects it. How does that apply to 70 AD?

One of the things He spoke about before that was the gathering of the elect. This highlights a major weakness of the preterist view of the OD. Preterists have tried giving explanations for the gathering of the elect that, frankly, I find to be embarrassing (for them). So, what is your explanation for how the gathering of the elect already occurred before 70 AD?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mean it makes no sense to you.
Obviously. Do I have to point that out every time I'm giving an opinion? Do you do that? No. So, you're apparently just trying to be difficult.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,241
2,976
MI
✟519,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is the distinction:


Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
— Matthew 25:1
Who were you talking to here? Was this intended to be a response to what I said in post #915? If so, can you elaborate on what you're trying to say here?
 
Upvote 0