The contraversy of the paragraph "This Generation"

[mark9950]

Lets make one thing clear,I know of this contraversy and must say that whether Jesus said or meant it is really unimportant of my point.

Jesus followers believed that he was coming back in many more verses of the Bible in their generation.

This puts to rest what jesus said and meant with this paragraph "This Generation" His followers believed that he was coming quickly which discredits the bible as the INFALLABLE word of God because either jesus lied or someone made an error.

Take your pick

[judge]

Originally posted by mark9950
Lets make one thing clear,I know of this contraversy and must say that whether Jesus said or meant it is really unimportant of my point.

Jesus followers believed that he was coming back in many more verses of the Bible in their generation.

This puts to rest what jesus said and meant with this paragraph "This Generation" His followers believed that he was coming quickly which discredits the bible as the INFALLABLE word of God because either jesus lied or someone made an error.

Take your pick

Not at all...

Jesus did "return" He came on clouds of glory.

As most scholars, Church leaders, and even skeptics down the centuries have affirmed, Jesus Christ promised his early apostles that they would be the ones to witness the last days events as well as His return in their generation (Matt 24:33-34; Matt 23:36). We that are citizens of the Kingdom of God hardly need mention that the Lord of Heaven and Earth always keeps his promises. Therefore, the assertion that Jesus honored his promise to return in the lifetimes of his apostles (Matt 10:22-23; Matt 16:27-28; John 21:21-22) should come as a surprise to no one—the apostles, along with their Master, all taught and prophesied that they were the last days generation (Heb 1:1-2; James 5:3; 1 Cor 10:11; Acts 2:15-17; 1 Peter 1:20; Heb 9:26; Matt 16:3). The "last days" signifies the last days of the Old Testamental Age.

from.....

http://www.preteristvision.org/articles/seven_evidences.html

[Javaman]

Judge, I do not buy that argument one bit. These passages are only up for interpretation by those who desperately need them to be:

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

Mark 9:1
And he said to them, `Verily I say to you, That there are certain of those standing here, who may not taste of death till they see the reign of God having come in power.'

Luke 9:27
and I say to you, truly, there are certain of those here standing, who shall not taste of death till they may see the reign of God.'

... still waiting for answers to my questions on this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67319) and this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67491) (although they are related questions).

[mark9950]

Where is he?I have never met him,have you?

If what you say is true than Christianity is full of it because they think he is as yet to come from heaven.

[foursquareman]

Can I just butt in for a second. Whether you believe the explanation or not, is up to you.

As a Christian myself, I need to understand what is written. We see that Jesus says that the some disciples will not die, before they see the "reign of God in power ". Each of the verses you posted say basically the same thing. What is this "reign of God". I don't believe that it is Jesus "coming back". I believe it was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I believe God's reign came in power on the day of pentecost, which would mean that Jesus was not wrong.

The verses you posted don't say that Christ will come back in the flesh, only that they will see the "reign of God".

This explanation does not change the meaning, or "interpret" the passage, but just explains it's meaning. Well, for me anyway.

[Javaman]

foursquareman, what you say goes against the verse from Matthew:

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

How you choose to read Matthew is up to you but I see it as a stretch.

[Godless Wonder]

One interpretation you've no doubt seen around here if you've been paying attention (I'm surprised it hasn't already cropped up in this thread):

Jesus says that some standing there would see it, not experience it, before they "taste death". Some of them did see it. In a vision. Detailed in Revelations, specifically.

Oh, that Jesus, he's such a riddler.

[Magus55]

Why is that not a valid explanation? Because you don't like it?

[Javaman]

The problem, Magus, is that it then makes no sense to make such a statement. What is the point of Jesus' proclamation? If the point he's trying to make is that "Some of you shall see visions of the future wherein I reign," then I call that a nonsensical statement.

[foursquareman]

I understand what you are saying Javaman, that Mathew mentions that they shall see Jesus, but I still believe that he is talking about Jesus coming "in His reign" which I believe means when the Holy Spirit came in power.

But, yes, each of us is free to read Mathew in any way we like :)

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Magus55
Why is that not a valid explanation? Because you don't like it? Reread my post. Did I say it wasn't valid? Actually I think it's pretty clever. I don't happen to think that it's true, it smacks of after the fact rationalization. But, I do think it's a clever rationalization.

[nermal]

Thing is, some of them are still alive. Yep, they've been changing their identities every seventy years or so, and moving about, blending in, but they're still wandering about waiting for Jesus. I wonder if they're getting impatient.

"There can be only one."

Ed

[mark9950]

I wonder if they're getting impatient.

They were getting impatient in 2 Peter 3:4


And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It's hard to see how they could have made it any clearer that they believed Jesus would physically return real soon and "put the world to rights" (just as many modern fundies do).

How else would they have phrased it?

There are basically two possibilities: either they DID expect the return to be imminent, or they DID NOT. If they DID NOT, then they should have anticipated the problem their remarks would cause, and specified clearly that they weren't talking about an imminent physical return. And if they DID believe in a physical return in the distant future, they should have said so.

Why did they NOT clarify what they meant?

...Because they did not foresee this problem. This delay was not supposed to happen.

[judge]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It's hard to see how they could have made it any clearer that they believed Jesus would physically return real soon and "put the world to rights" (just as many modern fundies do).

How else would they have phrased it?



Hi can you explain just how "they" made it so clear Jesus would "physically" return?
What is the phrasing that indicates this?

[spurly]

Originally posted by mark9950
Lets make one thing clear,I know of this contraversy and must say that whether Jesus said or meant it is really unimportant of my point.

Jesus followers believed that he was coming back in many more verses of the Bible in their generation.

This puts to rest what jesus said and meant with this paragraph "This Generation" His followers believed that he was coming quickly which discredits the bible as the INFALLABLE word of God because either jesus lied or someone made an error.

Take your pick

Yes, people misunderstood Jesus. Jesus did not even know when he was coming back (Acts 1:7). So when Jesus said, "Some who are standing here will not die until they see the son of Man coing in his kingdom", he could not have been talking about his final return - because he did not know when that would happen. He was either talking about the transfiguration, or him coming in the glory of his kingdom - the church.

Kevin

[mark9950]

Jesus did not even know when he was coming back (Acts 1:7).

That is really irrelevant because HIS BELIEVERS believed he was coming back then.

What jesus meant was his own understanding,but what his followers believed he was coming back then was a different matter.

Which makes the bible as having a lack of credibility.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Hi can you explain just how "they" made it so clear Jesus would "physically" return?
What is the phrasing that indicates this?
I can see why Christians would prefer to believe that references to the "return" are actually addressing either the resurrection or a symbolic "coming of the Kingdom of God".

But the "coming of the Kingdom of God" Is supposed to be a huge and obvious event:
Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
This did not happen.

But neither of these excuses will work with the verses in Paul. Paul was writing after the resurrection and the supposed appearance of the "Holy Spirit". The Second Coming was so imminent that there was no point in seeking a wife if you didn't already have one: be celibate and prepare yourselves!
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
He was referring to an event which hadn't happened yet, but would happen within the lifetimes of Paul and his audience:
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
There are many such verses in the books of the New Testament that refer to events AFTER those of the gospels. Something was GOING to happen (it wasn't already happening, hence it wasn't the rise of Christianity) and it was going to happen SOON.
Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

[judge]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I can see why Christians would prefer to believe that references to the "return" are actually addressing either the resurrection or a symbolic "coming of the Kingdom of God".

But the "coming of the Kingdom of God" Is supposed to be a huge and obvious event:

This did not happen.



This certainly did happen.
If one examine the various times that Yahweh "came in judgement" in the old testament writings we see what it means.
Yahweh came in judgement on Jerusalem on clouds of glory.
This was a huge and obvious event for those in jerusalem. Josephus records that at one stage 500 were crucified each day and that they ran out of wood to make crosses with!

Compare this with the other times Yaweh "came" in the writings of the prophets.

Compare this with the other times that the prophets said the sun would be darkened and the satrs would fall from the sky! This is exactly the same language used by the OT prophets to foretell earthly judgements.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You're referring to the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70?

THIS was Jesus returning, the arrival of the "Kingdom of God"? An assault by pagan Romans?

I rather strongly doubt that this was what the authors were referring to!
Compare this with the other times Yaweh "came" in the writings of the prophets.

Compare this with the other times that the prophets said the sun would be darkened and the satrs would fall from the sky! This is exactly the same language used by the OT prophets to foretell earthly judgements.
Yes, they got it wrong then as well.

[gregor]

The preterist argument is a poor post-hoc rationalization. It ignores all of the language about the events surrounding the return (darkness, all people seeing him, trumpets, etc.).

And the ultimate proof of the invalidity of the preterist claim is 2 Peter.

2 Peter was probably written after 70 CE, and it points out that people are losing faith because no return of Christ. Why should we (2,000 years later) believe the second coming occurred in 70 CE, when those folks living in 100 CE were still awaiting a promised return - and complaining about it not occurring?

[Mike(ATL)]

Jack the Bodiless, read all of Mark 13, does that sound like Jesus is talking about something that's going to happen in 30 years or so? He gives several things that have to happen first, the least of which is not that the gospel must be preached to all the nations of the earth. You then attempt to take one phrase, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," and say that means it will all happen within what we commonly label in our current language the period of a "generation." Just look at the definition of the word genea (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1074&version=nas). Another interpretation of the word could be race, it's not clearly defined. Since it's not clear, look at the surrounding text. Jesus had just gone through this whole list of conditions to look for and things that must take place in a period of "tribulation" before the second coming. This certainly does not read like something that's supposed to happen within 30 years. Also note that right after the mention of this "generation" He says something that gives the impression that he's speaking on a larger timescale here.

Mark 13:30-31
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

I'm glad Mark and Spurly pointed out you pointed out 2 Peter 3 and Acts 1 because they clearly address this issue.

2 Peter 3 clearly says that although some were impatient that the apostle Peter at least was not expecting Jesus to come right away.

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Luke opens Acts by addressing this issue. Jesus said it is not for you to know the "time or epochs," does this sound like someone who's thinking on the timescale of a single generation? He even goes on to say that although the time of the second coming is unknown, they will soon receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:6-8
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Javaman gave a few verses speaking about a more immanent coming of the Son of Man. In all of those verses He said that at a time very close to His crucifixion. When Jesus died and was resurrected he conquered death and Satan and ushered in the time of Christ. He described his death as His coming to power Himself when He was on trial.

Matthew 26:64 (NASB, capitalized to denote OT reference)
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

This certainly isn't a rationalization. Jesus was making the point that He was establishing His kingdom fulfilling prophecy. Not a worldly kingdom but a spiritual kingdom.

Hope this clears things up, as always please correct me where I'm saying something contradictory to the Bible.

[judge]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You're referring to the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70?

THIS was Jesus returning, the arrival of the "Kingdom of God"? An assault by pagan Romans?

Yes this is exactly what I am saying...read the prophets ..Joel is one who springs to mind. Read just who it is that is at the head of this terrible army in Joel

[Jack the Bodiless]

Mike:

Those works you cite were written later than the verses from Paul, when the non-arrival of Jesus was becoming a problem.

There is a fundamental problem with the use of later works to wriggle out of ANY contradiction: it means that the Bible is wrong until the later work gets written.

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Mike:

Those works you cite were written later than the verses from Paul, when the non-arrival of Jesus was becoming a problem.

There is a fundamental problem with the use of later works to wriggle out of ANY contradiction: it means that the Bible is wrong until the later work gets written. I don't buy that argument as long as the later works don’t contradict the earlier. That is certainly not the case here as I demonstrated. When Jesus was talking about his second coming originally, as I said, it does not appear he is talking about all of this happening within this "generation." He was trying to drive the point home that we do not know when He will come so we should be ready at all times. The reason for saying this, as I see it, is that we live with a sense of urgency when we know that Jesus could come again at any time. I guess you would like me to address specifically the verses you cited. Yes, it appears there was an attitude evident that Christ would be coming soon. Jesus wants us to have this attitude, however He did not promise to come right away (Mark 13:33). The authors in the verses you cited were not promising He would come right away. There's nothing wrong with believing Jesus will come soon, just know that we do not know the day so don't grow impatient. This is a consistent message throughout scripture, regardless of when the particular text was written.

[mark9950]

Either way the followers believed and written that he would come soon and he did not.

Which is a biblical error and the word of God is just a word of a god.

We cannot deny a misunderstanding between jesus meaning and his followers understanding can we?

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by mark9950
Either way the followers believed and written that he would come soon and he did not.

Which is a biblical error and the word of God is just a word of a god.Wrong. Like I said, the authors did not say that Jesus was definitely coming within their lifetimes so their word was not errant.

Originally posted by mark9950
We cannot deny a misunderstanding between jesus meaning and his followers understanding can we?Jesus cannot be responsible for our perception or how we act on it. If God was at fault every time we did something stupid then we have bigger problems than this.

[Doctor X]

Like I said, the authors did not say that Jesus was definitely coming within their lifetimes so their word was not errant.

Save that they clearly did say he was coming within their lifetimes.

Then, of course, you have those competing birth narratives and genealogies. . . .

--J.D.

[mark9950]

Jesus cannot be responsible for our perception or how we act on it

I guess you are saying that the english language EVOLVED and God did not create it.

That makes sense now.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Mike:
When Jesus was talking about his second coming originally, as I said, it does not appear he is talking about all of this happening within this "generation."
The problem here is that we cannot know what Jesus said "originally". Even though the storyline has the events in the gospels preceding Paul's writings, the gospels themselves do not: they were written later.
He was trying to drive the point home that we do not know when He will come so we should be ready at all times. The reason for saying this, as I see it, is that we live with a sense of urgency when we know that Jesus could come again at any time.
The authors of the gospels are making this point. As I see it, the reason is that Jesus didn't show up as predicted.
I guess you would like me to address specifically the verses you cited. Yes, it appears there was an attitude evident that Christ would be coming soon.
And this would have been the latest info from the most up-to-date Christian texts we know of, until the gospels themselves were written and the claim revised.

[Mike(ATL)]

Alright, it's my favorite time! It's the responses that either just ignore parts of what I said or just say well we can't trust the Bible anyway so hah.

Doctor X: Save that they clearly did say he was coming within their lifetimes.Like I demonstrated, the verses that clearly say the reign of the Son of Man is coming before they die are not talking about the second coming.

Jack the Bodiless: The problem here is that we cannot know what Jesus said "originally". Even though the storyline has the events in the gospels preceding Paul's writings, the gospels themselves do not: they were written later.So now, in showing how there should be no controversy to the "this generation" that shows up in the gospels I'm not allowed to use the gospels? Come on, if you're going to claim (with no evidence that I've seen) that the gospels were made up to somehow validate letters already written by Paul we don't have much we can even talk about.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Mike:
Like I demonstrated, the verses that clearly say the reign of the Son of Man is coming before they die are not talking about the second coming.
You "demonstrated" no such thing.

Let's have a look at that section of Mark again:
Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

From your link (the definition of "genea"):
1. fathered, birth, nativity

2. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time

4. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years
From the context, Jesus is obviously talking about a time period. This fits both 3 and 4: the multitude then living, or a period of about 30 years. 1 is obviously inappropriate, and 2 (the "passing" of a family: presumably the extinction of a family) gives no indication whatsoever of ANY timescale, so there would be no point in saying it.

This would certainly be interpreted by the listeners as an event in the near future, and this "mistake" is NOT their fault.

As I pointed out earlier: if there's an ambiguity, then it SHOULD have been clarified at the time. It wasn't, because it wasn't anticipated that this problem would arise.

You're applying an after-the-event rationalization for the failure of Jesus to show up. There's no other reason to pick such an odd interpretation of "genera". This is obvious.

Jack the Bodiless: The problem here is that we cannot know what Jesus said "originally". Even though the storyline has the events in the gospels preceding Paul's writings, the gospels themselves do not: they were written later.

So now, in showing how there should be no controversy to the "this generation" that shows up in the gospels I'm not allowed to use the gospels? Come on, if you're going to claim (with no evidence that I've seen) that the gospels were made up to somehow validate letters already written by Paul we don't have much we can even talk about.
The problem with Paul is the contradiction between Paul and REALITY. The contents of the gospels are irrelevant to THAT problem.

But, in general, you can't use later works to resolve a problem in earlier ones. To use an extreme example: if a verse in Revelation makes no sense without a context established in Genesis, then you can quote Genesis, because it's reasonable to assume that the author of Revelation would use that context too. You cannot, however, "interpret" a part of Genesis that you don't like by quoting from Revelation, an interpretation entirely alien to both the author and the reader for centuries to come. This is why the Christian doctrine of the "Fall", and Satan's role in it, is un-Biblical.

[Doctor X]

Mike:

As Jack the Bodiless demonstrates in detail, you simply failed to justify your reinterpretation of the passage.

--J.D.

[Jim Larmore]

Dr.X.
Welcome back,,,,, where you been man? I ain't seen a post from you in several days . You been sick or something?:)

[Doctor X]

No, getting beaten up by angry men and women . . . I should have taken up golf . . . where I was had no internet connection--I had a PM demanding why I did not answer a direct question.

Nevertheless, it did have its religious connotations--particularly worship of Dionysius . . . I am not a heathen, you know. . . .

--J.D.

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
From the context, Jesus is obviously talking about a time period. This fits both 3 and 4: the multitude then living, or a period of about 30 years. 1 is obviously inappropriate, and 2 (the "passing" of a family: presumably the extinction of a family) gives no indication whatsoever of ANY timescale, so there would be no point in saying it.

This would certainly be interpreted by the listeners as an event in the near future, and this "mistake" is NOT their fault.

As I pointed out earlier: if there's an ambiguity, then it SHOULD have been clarified at the time. It wasn't, because it wasn't anticipated that this problem would arise.

You're applying an after-the-event rationalization for the failure of Jesus to show up. There's no other reason to pick such an odd interpretation of "genera". This is obvious.How from the context do you think the 3. and 4. definitions apply but not 2.? From the context it seems to me He is "obviously" using the 2. definition.

Mark 13:30-23
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Tell me, why would He say that it will definitely happen within 30 years but not even He knows when it will be? That doesn't make any sense. More appropriately it seems He is saying this "race" will not pass away. However, as I've already said, if that still is not enough to convince you look at the long list of things Jesus says have to happen before the second coming. For example the gospel must be preached to all nations. This is not the kind of thing that can be done in 30 years. You say according to the context the 3. and 4. definitions are obviously what He means. What context are you looking at? And please for the sake of my sanity do not resort to that lame "God should've known how all languages and translations would make these words appear so it's His fault anyway" argument.

By the way, thanks for the good scripture-based discussion, hope we can clear this up and hope to see you around in the future.

[Doctor X]

Tell me, why would He say that it will definitely happen within 30 years but not even He knows when it will be?

The author could not be more specific.

--J.D.

[mark9950]

Unless I am mistaken jesus supposidly came back after he died and thomas put his finger in his wounds.In this instance there is no record of any of those signs.

What this in my opinion would mean either one of two things.Either jesus is a liar or he is coming again in a near future event for a third coming.

That would really depend on when the books are written though.If they were written before his instance with thomas than it would be a lie because there were no signs after his death or were the signs there at the instance of his death and no one really knew?

.Jesus came to the earth as a baby.he came back after his death and resurrection to meet thomas,he is coming back again a third time?

Also when was 2 peter written before or after jesus died?

If written after the instance with thomas than they believed he is coming a third time.They believed he was coming a third time?

Is there a cart before the horse?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Mark 13:30-23
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Tell me, why would He say that it will definitely happen within 30 years but not even He knows when it will be?
All he's saying here is that he doesn't know the day or the hour. He isn't saying that he has no idea of the approximate timescale: he's already given that!
However, as I've already said, if that still is not enough to convince you look at the long list of things Jesus says have to happen before the second coming. For example the gospel must be preached to all nations. This is not the kind of thing that can be done in 30 years.
The known world wasn't very large in those days. Preaching the gospel in all the then-known nations seems quite feasible in 30 years.
You say according to the context the 3. and 4. definitions are obviously what He means. What context are you looking at?
This is the context: "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." He's specifying signs, and a timescale. How does "this family shall not be extinct till these things be done" fit in? Which family? The Israelites? Why are they likely to be going extinct?
And please for the sake of my sanity do not resort to that lame "God should've known how all languages and translations would make these words appear so it's His fault anyway" argument.
The problem isn't with the English language. The claim is in the original Greek of the texts, both of the gospels and of Paul. It's also evidently in the Aramaic of the oral tradition of the early Christians, or why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter?

[gregor]

Mike

And what part of "some standing here not tasting death" did not mean a return within +/- 30 years?

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
All he's saying here is that he doesn't know the day or the hour. He isn't saying that he has no idea of the approximate timescale: he's already given that!

The known world wasn't very large in those days. Preaching the gospel in all the then-known nations seems quite feasible in 30 years.

This is the context: "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." He's specifying signs, and a timescale. How does "this family shall not be extinct till these things be done" fit in? Which family? The Israelites? Why are they likely to be going extinct?Just quoting the words before that phrase does not mean the context supports your claim. All you've said is He's specifiing timescale. Well if it weren't for how you interpret this "generation will not pass away" you would have no context to support that claim. When you consider my interpretation it fits with the rest of the passage. He was just talking about a horrible time of tribulation where many will die. He is then saying the Israelites will survive the period of tribulation, this race will not pass away. And after that it's not just that we won't know the hour or day, He goes on:

Mark 13:33-37
33 Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.
34 "It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.
35 "Therefore, be on the alert--for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning--
36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.
37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"

He goes on to say we have no idea when the appointed time will come except for that we can recognize these signs. He even says at the end "What I say to you I say to all." Every indication aside from your interpretation of "this generation will not pass away" points to a much larger timescale.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The problem isn't with the English language. The claim is in the original Greek of the texts, both of the gospels and of Paul. It's also evidently in the Aramaic of the oral tradition of the early Christians, or why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter? The Christians would be getting impatient because people are impatient. Even we today like to think the end times are coming soon (not that I'm saying they aren't). What was said in 2 Peter was something that certainly needed to be said, it still applies today.

gregor: what part of "some standing here not tasting death" did not mean a return within +/- 30 years?Good question but you must've missed that I've already addressed that.

Me: Javaman gave a few verses speaking about a more immanent coming of the Son of Man. In all of those verses He said that at a time very close to His crucifixion. When Jesus died and was resurrected he conquered death and Satan and ushered in the time of Christ. He described his death as His coming to power Himself when He was on trial.

Matthew 26:64 (NASB, capitalized to denote OT reference)
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

[mark9950]

why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter?

I would speculate that THEY BELIEVED jesus was coming in their generation as the statement says as the point of my post points out.

The response was a day is as a 1000 years which really means they do not know why he did not come back in their generation AND EXPLAINED IT AWAY instead of CLARIFYING the understanding of what was said.

They would not have to question anything if they knew that it WAS NOT THEIR GENERATION in the first place,would they?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Just quoting the words before that phrase does not mean the context supports your claim. All you've said is He's specifiing timescale. Well if it weren't for how you interpret this "generation will not pass away" you would have no context to support that claim. When you consider my interpretation it fits with the rest of the passage. He was just talking about a horrible time of tribulation where many will die. He is then saying the Israelites will survive the period of tribulation, this race will not pass away.
...Using a phrase that's guaranteed to mislead his audience!
And after that it's not just that we won't know the hour or day, He goes on:

Mark 13:33-37
33 Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.
34 "It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.
35 "Therefore, be on the alert--for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning--
36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.
37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"
How is this inconsistent with an imminent second coming?

Yes, be alert. Be ready. It's gonna happen in YOUR lifetime, but YOU do not know when the appointed time will come.

To use a modern analogy: don't drive too fast, because you cannot know the time or place of mobile police radar units. If you did, they'd be less effective at making us drive safely at all times. This doesn't mean that no mobile police radar units will be deployed in your neighborhood for the next 2000 years.
He goes on to say we have no idea when the appointed time will come except for that we can recognize these signs. He even says at the end "What I say to you I say to all." Every indication aside from your interpretation of "this generation will not pass away" points to a much larger timescale.
You haven't given ANY pointers to a "much larger timescale". There is nothing in the passage that even implies to the audience that this will take more than 30 years or thereabouts.

Only one hint of a timescale is given: "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

As DOctor X said, "the author could not be more specific". If you assume that the author DID expect an imminent return: how ELSE would he have phrased it?

[Doctor X]

Indeed, to reiterate, the author was not stupid enough to fix a date . . . could be wrong. He may have been sincere in his belief, but he allowed enough space. It is a bit like me predicting TEOTWAWKI in "the next thirty years" knowing that most of you will have forgotten or not be around to say "aha!"

--J.D.

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Indeed, to reiterate, the author was not stupid enough to fix a date . . . could be wrong. He may have been sincere in his belief, but he allowed enough space. It is a bit like me predicting TEOTWAWKI in "the next thirty years" knowing that most of you will have forgotten or not be around to say "aha!"

--J.D. Theory and conjecture. You say the author didn't want to fix a date cause He wasn't stupid enough. I say Jesus did not give a date because we couldn't handle a date. Imagine if Jesus said the end of the world is coming in 30 years, everyone would be going nuts. People can't handle that kind of information. The best possible message he could give was the message he gave. That He could come at anytime so be alert. Don't be lazy, be ready, live as if Jesus could be coming back at any moment.

Jack, I think we've pretty much exhausted that scripture. It seems to me that you are eager to believe that Jesus was a liar. I'm eager to believe Jesus was not a liar. I believe I've demonstrated pretty well my take on that passage. You've demonstrated pretty well your take on that passage. Anyone else reading this can decide for themselves.

[Doctor X]

Theory and conjecture.

"People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones."

I say Jesus did not give a date because we couldn't handle a date.

"Theory and conjecture." Perhaps "unreasonable apology" proves more apt. That Mt did not know Junior is the standard of scholarship. It is therefore far more likely that Mt simply did not want to pin down a prediction than for Junior to have been imprecise. Given that Mt and Lk cannot agree on a birth date, the burden of proof remains with those who wish to argue that this statement actually happened.

And what if it did? Despite attempts to torture the words otherwise, the passage clearly indicates that Mt expected the return within the lifespan of those there. Given the dating of Mt it is reasonable to believe that he may have felt "the end is near."

Imagine if Jesus said the end of the world is coming in 30 years, everyone would be going nuts.

"Theory and conjecture." I rather prefer "ipse dixit and wrong" since 30 years is a long time for those who expect the end. I refer to any apocalyptic cult in history.

People can't handle that kind of information.

Ipse dixit and wrong given what apocalyptic cults have shown us.

One should not misrepresent:

Jack, I think we've pretty much exhausted that scripture. It seems to me that you are eager to believe that Jesus was a liar.

No, he has demonstrated that Mt was a "liar" in that what he wrote did not happen. When Mt wrote it he may have believed it. I believed the Red Sox would win a World Series before the Patriots would ever win a Superbowl. That is not a "lie" as an "error" to paraphrase the Vulcan.

Now, if one believes the historical Junior made this prediction . . . if he was not deluded then he did, indeed, lie. At best, he was wrong.

That is that.

--J.D.

[Mike(ATL)]

Originally posted by Doctor X
That is that.LOL, oh, well then! I'm "torturing words" and you only describe what is "clearly indicated." Your argument is flawless. Like I said, the evidence has been presented, I'll let people decide for themselves, I've said what needed to be said.

[Bob K]

Mike(ATL): [Please] for the sake of my sanity do not resort to that lame "God should've known how all languages and translations would make these words appear so it's His fault anyway" argument.

If you were a god, would you not intend that your written words be absolutely/perfectly clear--because you are absolutely perfect?

And, if you were a god, would you not intend that all translations of your original written words be absolutely/perfectly clear--because you are absolutely perfect?

If we do not create and use standards for the evaluation of so-called holy/sacred books then all is lost, anything goes, and your interpretation is as valid as mine, and anyone else’s holy book is just as valid as yours, or mine.

Here is a set of standards for the evaluation of holy books:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html

Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.

Here is a list of standards for the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.

Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6. The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.

Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Thus, from #7, necessary for the evaluation of holy books, your claim that Standard #7 annoys you and is therefore invalid is itself an invalid claim.

If the gods are absolutely perfect, then everything supposedly done by them should be absolutely perfect.

Zero defects.

No confusions = No misinterpretations.

No contradictions = No contradictions to use as justification for judging an holy book to be unholy/nonholy.

No factual errors = No factual errors to use as justification for judging an holy book to be unholy/nonholy.

As soon as we excuse the confusions and contradictions and factual errors then we give up/lose our standards and anything goes, including absurdity and stupidity.