If Jesus didn't know the day and hour, ....

[Sheepdog]

...how could he know what signs would be associated with his parousa?

not a serious question, because I know the answer, but i am simply taking Terral's logic and applying it consistently. He wants to say that if Jesus didn't know the day and hour, he couldn't have known it was going to be in the time of that generation. However, if this were sound reasoning, it seems to cut both ways. (i'd argue it is not sound, but that is being debated elsewhere so i'll leave that be.) How could Jesus know that the coming would be associated with a time of plagues, pestilences, wars, and rumors of wars? Maybe the Father forordained it to happen after an unprecedented time of peace and abundance. The abomination standing in the holy place? Maybe that would actually have come and long gone when he "returned."

The problem i see is, the only answers i can think of (and i can think of a few) themselves cut both ways; if Jesus was able to know the nature of the times God ordained the parousa to occur, then it is at least possible he knew it was ordained to come in that generation, even if He didn't know the exact date and time.

now, let's see if Terral can do this without driving the nail into his eschatology's coffin.

[Terral]

Sheepdog:
Sheepdog >> If Jesus didn't know the day and hour, how could he know what signs would be associated with his parousa?
“How?” is not the operative question to be asking in this situation. Right away you are starting this thread using a false premise. Christ knew exactly ‘what’ the signs of these things would be leading up to ‘Your coming’ at the ‘end of the age.’ The OT prophets were given to see ‘what’ would happen just before and during the “day of the Lord.” Zeph. 1:1-10, Joel 2:28-32, etc. Even our NT prophets like Peter (Acts 2:17-21, 2Pet. 3:7-12) and Paul (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2) have given us information about the ‘end of the age’ and the coming ‘day of the Lord.’ Paul even connects our gathering to when the day of the Lord begins. These Thessalonians were disturbed over rumors that the day of the Lord had already started, and that they had missed the Rapture of 1Thes. 4:17 . . .

“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Thes. 4:16) and our gathering together to Him (1Thes. 4:17), that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
We are standing in the same shoes as the Thessalonians waiting in anticipation of our gathering to the Lord, because the Day of the Lord has yet to BEGIN. Peter describes the ‘day of the Lord’ (2Pet. 3:10), being as ‘a thousand years.’ (2Pet. 3:8). John is describing the same ‘thousand years’ (Rev. 20:5) as the time that Satan is chained in the pit (Rev. 20:2). This is the time that “His Spirit” is poured out on “All mankind,” according to Joel 2:28 and Peter in Acts 2:17. They are both describing events of the ‘day of the Lord.’ Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20. I can give you a couple dozen verses of Scripture that describe the day of the Lord with great detail, but NOBODY has a clue as to when any of those events are fulfilled. This is simply one of those things in Scripture that even the Son of God does not know.

“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Everybody sit back in your chair and say “the Father alone” three times . . . Who knows ‘when’ the sign of ‘all these things’ will take place? “The Father Alone,” “The Father Alone,” and “The Father Alone.” How is it that the Son of God does not know ‘when’ all of these things will take place? Because, only “The Father Alone” knows “when.” I am not making this stuff up, but continue to simply quote Scripture for that it ‘does’ say.
Sheepdog >> Not a serious question, because I know the answer, but i am simply taking Terral's logic and applying it consistently. He wants to say that if Jesus didn't know the day and hour, he couldn't have known it was going to be in the time of that generation.
Thank you for expressing what Scripture is saying very clearly. If Christ had known when, then He could have simply said so and there would be no need for all of this ‘signs’ business. Imagine for a moment that you are the prophet among us. Suppose you are given to see every event of the final days of the ‘Day of the Lord.’ You see the armies gathering for the Battle of Armageddon, all the earthquakes, famines, etc.. You even see the antichrist setting up his ‘abomination of desolation,’ and Christ’s return. Then you see heaven and earth pass away and New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. You see all of these things in brilliant Three Dimensional Technicolor right down to the last detail. Now you know everything that is to be known about ‘what’ will happen. Please tell me from what you just saw ‘when’ those things take place? Since the ‘day of the Lord’ comes like a thief in the night (2Thes. 5:1+2), and “The Father Alone” knows ‘when’ these things take place, then you simply do not have a clue as to ‘when.’

Now teleport yourself back to stand with Christ among the Twelve. Listen to Him as He gives the same exact accounting to His elect of things you just saw in your own vision. Is there any way possible that Christ could tell the Disciples that He was now speaking to the generation living in that day? Well, is there? No! Terral’s logic has nothing to do with what Christ knew and what “The Father Alone” knew. Do not allow these people to think they can attack Terral and change what was in the mind of Christ, when He gave these prophecies in Matthew 24. What Christ knew has nothing to do with what these people think of me or my arguments. Read the Scriptures for yourselves and you will see that what I am saying is true. God’s Word is greater than all the words of men combined; remember that always.
Sheepdog >> However, if this were sound reasoning, it seems to cut both ways. (i'd argue it is not sound, but that is being debated elsewhere so i'll leave that be.) How could Jesus know that the coming would be associated with a time of plagues, pestilences, wars, and rumors of wars?
This point is addressed above; by I must add that Sheepdog is being very presumptuous and almost insolent to be asking ‘how’ Christ knows anything. What did Christ tell the Twelve, when they asked about the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel?

“So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.”
Instead of saying, “I do not know,” Christ reminded the Apostles that the Father is running the show, and that the timing of all these things is known by “The Father Alone.” My charge against the Preterists here is that they are Pretending to know more than even Christ Himself was given to know. When Christ says that the Son does not know the day or hour (Matt. 24:36), then we are supposed to stop worrying about the donkey and load the cart. Stop trying to convince me that you know more about ‘when’ these things happen that Christ.
Sheepdog >> Maybe the Father forordained it to happen after an unprecedented time of peace and abundance. The abomination standing in the holy place? Maybe that would actually have come and long gone when he "returned."
What is the “maybe” this and “maybe” that about? We cannot interpret Scripture by what ‘could be,’ ‘might be’ or ‘could have been.’ All of Scripture is given by the same Spirit of God. 2Tim. 3:16+17. I would rather a person be hot and on my side, or cold and on the opposing side. The lukewarm guy in the middle trying to push a ‘could be’ interpretation does little or nothing for me.
Sheepdog >> The problem i see is, the only answers i can think of (and i can think of a few) themselves cut both ways; if Jesus was able to know the nature of the times God ordained the parousa to occur, then it is at least possible he knew it was ordained to come in that generation, even if He didn't know the exact date and time. now, let's see if Terral can do this without driving the nail into his eschatology's coffin.
In other words, let’s just implant the ‘when’ knowledge into Christ’s head so that we can tell everybody that He is speaking to the generation of 2000 years ago. The fact that NONE of the prophecies of the Day of the Lord came to pass is of no importance . . . right? I continue to see the Preterists here playing the ‘shell game,’ as if they have the desperate need and desire to sell you on changing the true context of ‘this generation’ in this single verse (Matt. 24:34) in order to even begin explaining anything else in this passage or anywhere else in the Bible. Dee Dee borrowed context from Christ’s references to the unfaith generation (Pharisees and Scribes) in Matthew 23. Faramir uses the Lexicon definition of ‘this’ (houtos; #3778) as your choice under the middle cup of the shell game. Now Sheepdog is placing inferred knowledge to Christ about ‘when’ these things take place under cup number three. All of their choices are DEAD WRONG, because all are found outside the context and teaching that Christ is delivering in THIS PASSAGE of Matthew 24. “This generation” is the one to see the ‘signs’ of ‘all these things’ taking place from Matthew 24:3-29 in sequential order. Have you experienced an earthquake in your lifetime? If so, then how do you know this was not the ‘end of the age?’ Because, none of the other signs were present. When you realize that Christ is teaching about “things which are coming upon the world” (Luke 21:26), then you can recognize that He is not describing anything that occurred in 70 AD in Matthew 24.

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

:sigh:

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog:

“How?” is not the operative question to be asking in this situation. Right away you are starting this thread using a false premise. Christ knew exactly ‘what’ the signs of these things would be leading up to ‘Your coming’ at the ‘end of the age.’

i don't see how my premise was false. and in fact you are affirming the very premise which i am framing my argument on. Christ knew the signs but not what generation they would occur? You really don't see the inconsistency here?

The OT prophets were given to see ‘what’ would happen just before and during the “day of the Lord.” Zeph. 1:1-10, Joel 2:28-32, etc. Even our NT prophets like Peter (Acts 2:17-21, 2Pet. 3:7-12) and Paul (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2) have given us information about the ‘end of the age’ and the coming ‘day of the Lord.’ Paul even connects our gathering to when the day of the Lord begins. These Thessalonians were disturbed over rumors that the day of the Lord had already started, and that they had missed the Rapture of 1Thes. 4:17 . . .

ironically, if you read 2Th 2 without a futurist bias, you would be left to believe that Paul thought the "antichrist" was coming very soon, i.e. within their lifetimes. He expected the Thessalonians to know who he was refering to, and what was restraining him "now" [at the time Paul was writing].

but none of the above diminishes my point. they were told by God to know what signs to expect, but the case is not the same with Jesus: He was God!

sure, the Son didn't know precisely when it would come (this can be accounted for by a willful ignorance of the information), but being one with the Father in purpose and ontology gives Him a special knowledge of the future that the OT prophets never had. Notice, all the prophecies in the OT were prefixed with a "thus the LORD says, ..." or something equivalent. Not so with Jesus. and interestingly not so for the apostles (this can be explained as them basing their own predictions on what Jesus said in Olivet, witht eh excpetion of John since the stuff in Rev. is being revealed to him and he is simply jotting down what he saw).

... I can give you a couple dozen verses of Scripture that describe the day of the Lord with great detail, but NOBODY has a clue as to when any of those events are fulfilled. This is simply one of those things in Scripture that even the Son of God does not know.[/size]

you missed the point totally. we aren't talking about the so-called "Day of the Lord." but the signs leading up to Jesus' parousa as described in Olivet. do you believe that it was predicted that these signs were to be associated with the coming described?


“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Everybody sit back in your chair and say “the Father alone” three times . . . Who knows ‘when’ the sign of ‘all these things’ will take place? “The Father Alone,” “The Father Alone,” and “The Father Alone.” How is it that the Son of God does not know ‘when’ all of these things will take place? Because, only “The Father Alone” knows “when.” I am not making this stuff up, but continue to simply quote Scripture for that it ‘does’ say.

Nice sleight of hand. The passage doesn't say that the signs are unknown except by the Father, but simply the day and the hour specifically. which is kind of strange, because if no one knows when the signs will occur, you just lopped off any veracity to any interpretation of eschatological passages; especially your own interpretation.

now say this three times: The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place. The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place. The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place.


Thank you for expressing what Scripture is saying very clearly. If Christ had known when, then He could have simply said so and there would be no need for all of this ‘signs’ business.

And if Jesus didn't have any approximate idea when it would occur, then He would have no grounds at all to describe any signs as being associative with the events he predicted.

Imagine for a moment that you are the prophet among us. Suppose you are given to see every event of the final days of the ‘Day of the Lord.’ You see the armies gathering for the Battle of Armageddon, all the earthquakes, famines, etc.. You even see the antichrist setting up his ‘abomination of desolation,’ and Christ’s return. Then you see heaven and earth pass away and New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. You see all of these things in brilliant Three Dimensional Technicolor right down to the last detail. Now you know everything that is to be known about ‘what’ will happen. Please tell me from what you just saw ‘when’ those things take place? Since the ‘day of the Lord’ comes like a thief in the night (2Thes. 5:1+2), and “The Father Alone” knows ‘when’ these things take place, then you simply do not have a clue as to ‘when.’

yeah, but based on what i see i can extrapolate approximately. For instance, if i see tanks and helicopters fighting it out, i can safely say it won't be any time soon, relative to the first century (thank you, i think you just gave me a new argument to use against the futurist interpretation of the "soon" passages). However (and again, let's say i'm a prophet living in the first century Judea), if i see that everyone is dressed up much like I am, using the same basic tools, weapons, etc. i see in my modern 1st century life, then i have good reason to believe it will be happening soon relative to the 1st century, rather than 20+ centuries later.

Don't you see? i don't have to know precisely when it will happen to know if it is going to happen within the next generation, or thousands of years later. And that assumes i am simply being revealed the facts: this is stuff Jesus would know by virtue of being God the Son!


Now teleport yourself back to stand with Christ among the Twelve. Listen to Him as He gives the same exact accounting to His elect of things you just saw in your own vision. Is there any way possible that Christ could tell the Disciples that He was now speaking to the generation living in that day? Well, is there? No!

of course he could. he had enough sense to know what the signs would be. see my application of your analogy above.

Terral’s logic has nothing to do with what Christ knew and what “The Father Alone” knew. Do not allow these people to think they can attack Terral and change what was in the mind of Christ, when He gave these prophecies in Matthew 24. What Christ knew has nothing to do with what these people think of me or my arguments.

yes they do. the second you say Jesus didn't know enough to say it would occur in their generation is your own interpretation. is it not? it certainly isn't in the Bible, because i read it cover to cover and i don't see any indication that Jesus couldn't have predicted it to occure within a specific lifetime.

the only thing i see indicates taht Jesus didn't know the precise day nor hour, only that it would occur withing a generation of his prophecy.

Read the Scriptures for yourselves and you will see that what I am saying is true. God’s Word is greater than all the words of men combined; remember that always.

Funny. i read the Scripture, and it indicates that Jesus at least knew enough to say that it would occur within the lifetime of the generation of his day. Don't believe me? as you say it matters not what man says; this is Scripture.

This point is addressed above; by I must add that Sheepdog is being very presumptuous and almost insolent to be asking ‘how’ Christ knows anything.

me, insolent? nawww.... :wink:

so you know, i mean know disrespect to God nor Jesus. i'm simply showing you how your reasoning is incoherent. you are the one who is putting Jesus in a nebulous position.


[size=3]Instead of saying, “I do not know,” Christ reminded the Apostles that the Father is running the show, and that the timing of all these things is known by “The Father Alone.” My charge against the Preterists here is that they are Pretending to know more than even Christ Himself was given to know. When Christ says that the Son does not know the day or hour (Matt. 24:36), then we are supposed to stop worrying about the donkey and load the cart. Stop trying to convince me that you know more about ‘when’ these things happen that Christ.


i don't pretend to know more than Christ. Since the parousa already happend, now Christ knows when it occured. Duh.

I simply follow suit and agree that the fall of the Temple and the end of the Jewish age happened just as Jesus said it would. to say that we Preterists do more than that is intellectually dishonest, and blatantly disregards what we are trying to say.

and you talk about insolence. :no:

What is the “maybe” this and “maybe” that about? We cannot interpret Scripture by what ‘could be,’ ‘might be’ or ‘could have been.’ All of Scripture is given by the same Spirit of God. 2Tim.

:hehe: then why don't you believe Jesus when he said that the generation of his day wouldn't pass away before those things took place.

3:16+17. I would rather a person be hot and on my side, or cold and on the opposing side. The lukewarm guy in the middle trying to push a ‘could be’ interpretation does little or nothing for me.

you goober. :lol: i was not presenting an interpretation. i was simply dismanteling your attempt to reason your view into Scripture. the Word of God is inspired, but unfortunately Terral's word isn't.


In other words, let’s just implant the ‘when’ knowledge into Christ’s head so that we can tell everybody that He is speaking to the generation of 2000 years ago.

:lol: let's just implant ignorance into Christ's head so we can tell everybody that He is speaking to a generation that didn't exist in his day, and his prediction won't be fulfilled untill many millenia later.

The fact that NONE of the prophecies of the Day of the Lord came to pass is of no importance . . . right?

they did. you are just so enamored in your interpretation and ignorance of history taht you don't see it.

I continue to see the Preterists here playing the ‘shell game,’...

only one person here is playing a shell game. His name starts with a T and ends with an erral.

... as if they have the desperate need and desire to sell you on changing the true context of ‘this generation’ in this single verse (Matt. 24:34) in order to even begin explaining anything else in this passage or anywhere else in the Bible.

:rofl: the True Context of THIS GENERATION! :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

wow, i am getting light headed. please tell me you were joking, and you aren't really [u]that[/i] dense!


Dee Dee borrowed context from Christ’s references to the unfaith generation (Pharisees and Scribes) in Matthew 23. Faramir uses the Lexicon definition of ‘this’ (houtos; #3778) as your choice under the middle cup of the shell game. Now Sheepdog is placing inferred knowledge to Christ about ‘when’ these things take place under cup number three. All of their choices are DEAD WRONG, because all are found outside the context and teaching that Christ is delivering in THIS PASSAGE of Matthew 24.

THIS PASSAGE! :lmbo: not the context of a passage which will be written thousands of years into the future? :rofl: goofy goofy goofy, man.

“This generation” is the one to see the ‘signs’ of ‘all these things’ taking place from Matthew 24:3-29 in sequential order.

but, there is noting in the context that indicates that "this generation" is being used in any way other than the natural rendering; i.e. the generation living at the time Jesus was saying this. you have to force that interpretation into Scripture. and thus you are the one playing the shell game: placing "this generation" in an arbitrary cup in hopes it will save your goofy interpretation.

Have you experienced an earthquake in your lifetime? If so, then how do you know this was not the ‘end of the age?’ Because, none of the other signs were present. When you realize that Christ is teaching about “[font=Georgia]things which are coming upon the world” (Luke 21:26), then you can recognize that He is not describing anything that occurred in 70 AD in Matthew 24.

if you knew about history, and how to interpret such phrases in light of how they are used in the OT (which Jesus alludes to if not quotes many times in the Discourse), then you would recognize that what he described DID happen in AD 70. as such, you are so ingrained into an interpretation and so ignorant, that you simply cannot see who this can be.

[Terral]

Sheepdog:
Sheepdog >> I don't see how my premise was false. And in fact you are affirming the very premise which i am framing my argument on. Christ knew the signs but not what generation they would occur? You really don't see the inconsistency here?
We have that understanding already, Sheep. That is why I purposely pointed it out to you. How could Christ know what signs to give His Apostles about His coming? Are we here to determine the source of the Son’s knowledge? Christ knows everything the Father gave Him to know. I believe you presented us a leading question as your Thesis Statement. Directly after that you said, “I know the answer” to your own question; but that you had ulterior motives. That is what people refer to as trolling . . . You were inferring that since Christ knew all about ‘what,’ that the same Source also informed him about ‘when.’ Thus; the false premise (basis, idea, foundation, principle); right off the bat. This is feeling like more of a wild goose diversion than anything else.
Sheepdog >> ironically, if you read 2Th 2 without a futurist bias, you would be left to believe that Paul thought the "antichrist" was coming very soon, i.e. within their lifetimes. He expected the Thessalonians to know who he was referring to, and what was restraining him "now" [at the time Paul was writing].
We most definitely disagree. Paul expected them to know this teaching, because he had met with them personally and gone over all these things previously (2Thes. 2:5). This letter would have contained more information, if that prior meeting had not occurred. These four verses from Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians are perhaps the most difficult for people to get right.

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time* he will be revealed.”
Paul really had no business informing the Thessalonians about these events at all. He had just told them in the first letter:

“Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord* will come just like a thief in the night.”
Examine the two groups of verses very carefully and realize that ‘in his time’ occurs doing the ‘day of the Lord.’ Christ is describing his coming at the ‘end of the age’ in Matthew 24:15. Paul just told these Thessalonians that they had no need of anything to be written to them about the events of the day of the Lord (times and epochs), because our Rapture (gathering; 1Thes. 4:17) happens when the day of the Lord is AT HAND. 2Thes. 2:2. These Thessalonians were not expecting the antichrist to show up at any moment, because they already knew full well that they were going to be beamed up long before he ever showed up. That leads you to ask why Paul even brought him (man of sin) up in the second letter. Paul is contrasting the physical appearing of the man of sin ‘in his time’ on the day of the Lord with the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2Thes. 2:7) that is at work in our day. Paul is teaching them the opposing doctrine to the ‘mystery of Christ’ (Eph. 3:4, Col. 4:3) that the antichrist is also gathering a spiritual body in our day right now as we speak. If the things of prophecy were going to happen in our time, then Paul had every reason to write about the ‘times and the epochs’ of Prophecy concerning Israel. The ‘man of sin’ is seen by the prophets, but the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ was not seen by anybody, until the teaching was revealed right here by Paul. Therefore, none of these Thessalonians were expecting to see the man of sin to appear in their lifetimes. Nobody today should expect to see him our their lifetimes, as ‘his time’ is during the ‘day of the Lord.’
Sheepdog >> but none of the above diminishes my point. they were told by God to know what signs to expect, but the case is not the same with Jesus: He was God!
No sir. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John 1:34. He is our Intercessor (Rom. 8:34) and Mediator (1Tim. 2:5) between God AND men. Paul did not give these Thessalonians a long laundry list of end time events (earthquakes, famines, etc.), but told them to live a quiet life (1Thes. 4:11) leading up to describing our being ‘caught up.’ (1Thes. 4:16+17). Christ described the ‘times and epochs’ to the Twelve and the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3-31) events in great detail. Paul did not quote one verse of OT prophecy in either of the letters to the Thessalonians. Are all Preterists deluded into believing Jesus is God? Just wondering . . . Jesus is Lord, and God raised Him from the dead. Rom. 10:9. That is our confession of faith for salvation.
Sheepdog >> sure, the Son didn't know precisely when it would come (this can be accounted for by a willful ignorance of the information), but being one with the Father in purpose and ontology gives Him a special knowledge of the future that the OT prophets never had.
Right here is where the ‘false premise’ part of your testimony is trying to spread its wings. Christ told you straight out that the Son does not know when any of the events of Matthew 24 take place. Matt. 24:36. You are trying to grace Him with special knowledge that He did not possess, and still does not have to this day. Only “the Father alone” knows the day and hour. (irrelevant: OT prefix, parousa, snip)
Sheepdog >> Nice sleight of hand. The passage doesn't say that the signs are unknown except by the Father, but simply the day and the hour specifically. which is kind of strange, because if no one knows when the signs will occur, you just lopped off any veracity to any interpretation of eschatological passages; especially your own interpretation.
For you to prove that Christ knew for certain that He was addressing the ‘generation’ living in that day, then you must find some way of providing Him with the knowledge of ‘when’ all of those things would take place. Matthew 24:36 says that “The Father Alone” knows when these things will take place. You can talk in circles till the cows come home, but those are the simple facts in this case. Whoever you convince otherwise is ready to believe just about anything for no reason whatsoever. Christ Himself says that the Son does not know ‘when,’ and you cannot prove that Christ was speaking to the generation of that day without also making Him a liar.
Sheepdog >> now say this three times: The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place. The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place. The generation living in Jesus' time will not pass away until the events he describes took place.
Christ did not say that the generation living in that day would see all those signs. He said the one living to see all those signs would also see “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” The difference is that Sheepdog has purchased the lie from somebody else. This is like playing tag as children. You run somebody down and say, “You are it.” The funny thing about the Preterists here is that Dee, Faramir and now Sheepdog use different excuses for altering the meaning of this same key phrase “this generation.” If you people are right, then why are you changing Christ’s meaning for different reasons? When three kids playing together give you three different reasons on why the lamp was broken, then you know somebody is lying. All of you are trying to define ‘this generation’ as living in that day, when Christ Himself had no clue ‘when’ any of those signs would happen. That is distorting the true context into some man-made interpretation that teaches something other than the truth. I shall continue to point out the folly of these things for everybody else, and wait for the next kid to come along and give me his excuse for how the lamp was broken . . . You guys might consider getting together to get your stories straight on this point . . .
Sheepdog >> And if Jesus didn't have any approximate idea when it would occur, then He would have no grounds at all to describe any signs as being associative with the events he predicted.
Do you really believe that yourself? Here is your false premise again as a young chicken testing his flight feathers; another false supposition. Christ knew the long list of what would occur without having a clue as to when any of it would be fulfilled. That is exactly what Scripture says. He knows the order of the events from the start (false Christs; Matt. 24:5) to the gospel of the kingdom being preached to the whole world (vs. 14) to the abomination of desolation (vs. 15) through the tribulation (vs. 21) all the way to His coming (vs. 30+31). That was the perfect answer to the question of the disciples in verse 3. The only problem was that He had no clue about ‘when.’ “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Matt. 24:36. You can insist that Christ knows the answer to the ‘when’ question all you like, but that is your invention. (nonsense: helicopter, virtue, snip)
Sheepdog >> yes they do. the second you say Jesus didn't know enough to say it would occur in their generation is your own interpretation. is it not? it certainly isn't in the Bible, because i read it cover to cover and i don't see any indication that Jesus couldn't have predicted it to occure within a specific lifetime.
The reason we are having this discussion is because of the ‘way’ in which you are interpreting Scripture and adding false context to things in order to invent false doctrine. Christ does not know the time of any of the events of Matthew 24. That is far too simple for anyone to understand for me to be bringing it up to you in every paragraph of our discussion. Since you obviously do not believe Christ on the matter, then you certainly will not regard my views as anything at all. At some point I will be leaving you to your self made devices . . . Anyone deceived by such a lame series of arguments is deserving of the blindness that affects those who deliberately change the true context of Scripture. (nebulous, goober, Snip)

Here we have a prime example of the Preterist shell game going much too far. This whole discussion is Sheepdog providing every excuse under the sun for changing ‘this generation’ into the people living 2000 years go, so his entire invented theology will make some sense. The fact that all of the ‘end of the age’ events Christ described never happened in 70 AD is another matter altogether . . . The fact that the ‘day of the Lord’ still is not even ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2) seems to escape his notice entirely. How could all of those day of the Lord events happen in 70 AD, if the day of the Lord has not yet even started?! And these guys want to believe that they are shooting holes in my interpretations of Scripture . . . Heh. They have their heads buried in Matthew 24 so deeply, and in the sands of 70 AD, that they do not know the “Lord’s day” (day of the Lord) from Sunday. Now that from Rando was funny stuff . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Sheepdog]

We have that understanding already, Sheep. That is why I purposely pointed it out to you. How could Christ know what signs to give His Apostles about His coming? Are we here to determine the source of the Son’s knowledge? Christ knows everything the Father gave Him to know.

i'm just curious. do you realize you just put the noose around your own neck? in fact you did in your last post as well. if Jesus knew what he knew because the Father revealed it to Him, couldn't the Father reveal to Jesus that it would happen within the time frame of that generation? without giving the precise day and hour?

you seem to not understand, by arguing against the case i set up (a case, by the way, i don't care if it floats or sinks, and in fact i wanted you to refute it), you are also arguing against your own objection to the Preterist interpretation of "this generation." why? because it presumes to understand the nature of the knowledge the Father shared to Jesus about the times being described. Yet, you essentially admit that we don't have access to that knowledge, so like my argument about the signs, your case presumes too much.

so, i think this discussion is done. i've accomplished what i set out to do.

That is what people refer to as trolling . . .

hey, i said outright that i was up to something. you didn't have to respond to this thread.

You were inferring that since Christ knew all about ‘what,’ that the same Source also informed him about ‘when.’ Thus; the false premise (basis, idea, foundation, principle); right off the bat.

excuse me, but unless the event's Jesus was describing are totally detached from History, that is a distinction without a difference. the what and the when are more or less inseperable.

This is feeling like more of a wild goose diversion than anything else.

well relax then. i caught your goose, and i'm cooking it up as we speak.

i don't have enough time to bother with the rest of your post. i'm satisfied that we are done here.

[Terral]

Sheepdog:
Sheepdog >> i'm just curious. do you realize you just put the noose around your own neck? in fact you did in your last post as well. if Jesus knew what he knew because the Father revealed it to Him, couldn't the Father reveal to Jesus that it would happen within the time frame of that generation? without giving the precise day and hour?
No sir. Your goose is already cooked, and your question does not mean anything. Christ already told the Twelve that He did not know the day or the hour, and you still are not getting it; not even close . . . The reason is because the ‘day of the Lord’ comes as a thief in the night. 1Thes. 5:1+2. Can you begin to grasp what that really and truly means? Christ is describing ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+) events that occur at the END and FINAL years of the DAY OF THE LORD. Daniel describes the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Dan. 12:11+12) and then ends the prophecy with the ‘end of the age.’ Dan. 12:13. Christ cannot know ‘when’ these END OF THE AGE events take place, because nobody except the “FATHER ALONE” even knows when the ‘Day of the Lord’ BEGINS! The generation to be living at the ‘end of the age’ comes along ‘a thousand years’ AFTER the ‘day of the Lord’ is ‘AT HAND.’ 2Thes. 2:2. That moment marks the time that our current mystery church (Eph. 5:32, Col. 1:24-27) is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) and gathered to the Lord. Doing your math, that means the generation living at the ‘end of the age’ will be the 25th generation living from the time our church is Raptured out of here.
Sheepdog >> you seem to not understand, by arguing against the case i set up (a case, by the way, i don't care if it floats or sinks, and in fact i wanted you to refute it), you are also arguing against your own objection to the Preterist interpretation of "this generation." why?
Because you are trying to give a definition to ‘this generation’ that is way out of true context to Christ’s teaching. The generation living to see ‘all these things’ is the one to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age” and Him “at the door.” Matt. 24:33. I am in full disagreement, because I understand the myriad of passages of Scripture that speak of the day of the Lord and the fulfillment of that day. I see the mistake each of you are making by altering the true definition and context of the key words and phrases in the Text in order to prop up your man-made interpretation. The problem is that many of you are doing so for very different reasons, as already explained above.
Sheepdog >> Because it presumes to understand the nature of the knowledge the Father shared to Jesus about the times being described. Yet, you essentially admit that we don't have access to that knowledge, so like my argument about the signs, your case presumes too much. so, i think this discussion is done. i've accomplished what i set out to do.
No sir. I am interpreting Christ’s words in the way in which He delivers the message in the passage from the context He establishes by answering the Disciples question from Matthew 24:3. After giving the Twelve all of these signs in consecutive order, He says,

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things* [ from vs. 3-29 ], recognize that He is near, right at the door [ Your coming: vs. 30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these things* ] will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Sheepdog >> hey, i said outright that i was up to something. you didn't have to respond to this thread.
Heh. I was just making the observation for the benefit of the third party readers. This is not my first clambake . . .
Terral Original >> You were inferring that since Christ knew all about ‘what,’ that the same Source also informed him about ‘when.’ Thus; the false premise (basis, idea, foundation, principle); right off the bat.

Sheepdog >> Excuse me, but unless the event's Jesus was describing are totally detached from History, that is a distinction without a difference. the what and the when are more or less inseparable.
No sir. That is the point we are making here; that all of the events of the ‘day of the Lord’ are still future. You are trying to compare the trashing of one city to the global cataclysmic events associated with the ‘day of the Lord.’
Terral Original >> This is feeling like more of a wild goose diversion than anything else.

Sheepdog >> Well relax then. i caught your goose, and i'm cooking it up as we speak. I don't have enough time to bother with the rest of your post. I'm satisfied that we are done here.
That is quite alright, Sheepdog. Here are a few questions that demonstrate the folly of your interpretation. I do believe the smell from your kitchen is that of chicken. But, perhaps that is not the bird . . .

1. Paul says that we are ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2). If the ‘day of the Lord' prophecies are already fulfilled, then how do you explain the fact that we are still here?

2. Do you believe the prophecies of Revelation are already fulfilled? If not, which ones are still future?

3. Paul says the ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3+4) is coming to take his seat in the Temple of God displaying himself as God. John shows the beast being worshipped in Rev. 13:8, 12, etc.. Christ speaks of the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15, Dan. 12:11-13) in the middle of His giving of the signs. All of these verses show the ‘man of sin’ using the Temple to deceive the whole world into believing he is God. John says that all are given a mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16+17). What makes you believe that any of them are talking about destroying the Temple?

The point is that the beast (man of sin) is setting up the ‘abomination of desolation’ to deceive everyone in the world to believe he is God. The Preterists here do not understand enough about Scripture to know what ‘abomination of desolation’ means. The prophecy of Zechariah 7:3-7 is fulfilled at the ‘end of the age,’ when the events of Revelation are all fulfilled. The Preterists here are trying to say that a ton of Scripture was fulfilled, including the Judgment (Matt. 25:31-33), because that also occurs with Christ comes in glory with His angels.

4.) (Yes or No, and Why or Why Not): When Christ was talking about all the stones being cast down, do you believe that it is possible He was speaking with reference to the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:3-7, and not anything related to the Romans?

“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ] will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.”

5.) If you cannot believe that Christ was telling His Twelve about the fulfillment of this Prophecy in Matthew 24, which is predicted to occur at the ‘end of the age,’ then when do you believe this event Zechariah describes shall be fulfilled? GL.

In Christ,

Terral

[Makarios]

Terral, you state that "The generation living to see ‘all these things’ is the one to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age” and Him “at the door.” Matt. 24:33."

In context that generation is the one Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. Why do you think it refers to some other generation?

[Terral]

Makarios:
Terral Original >> "The generation living to see ‘all these things’ is the one to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age” and Him “at the door.” Matt. 24:33."

Makarios >> In context that generation is the one Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. Why do you think it refers to some other generation?
How many reasons would you like? What does Scripture say?

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour NO ONE knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON*, but the Father alone.”
1. If Christ knows that He is speaking to the Generation living in that day, there is NO REASON to speak to them in signs and parables. All He had to say is “your generation” instead of “this generation” that sees all these signs.


2. Christ just told you that He does not know when any of these things take place*. Matt. 24:36. Therefore, He cannot know if He is speaking of the generation living in that day, or of one 10,000 years in the future. He knows ‘what,’ but has no clue about ‘when.’ He tells them that the generation to see all these things (all the signs) will see Him at the door (vs. 33).

3. The events of Matthew 24:3-31 have yet to happen on this planet. Christ is not talking about the Romans coming in 70 AD, when talking about all the stones being thrown down. He is talking about this:

“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s; same as Matthew 24 discourse ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.”
What are you thinking now? Maybe a 10.0 on the Richter scale? How many stones do you believe are going to be left upon the other after this happens? Nothing like this happened in 70 AD, but it MUST happen in the future to fulfill Prophecy.

4. Christ is describing the last years of the ‘day of the Lord’ (Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, 2Pet. 3:10-12) and the Judgment (Matt. 25:31-33) that follows at the ‘end of the age.’ Joel says that “My Spirit” must be poured out on “All Mankind” first! (Joel 2:17, Acts 2:17). That has yet to happen.

5. Paul says that our ‘His body’ church (Col. 1:24) is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2), or when that day BEGINS. Take a good look around and realize that we are still here. So the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies must ALL be future. Otherwise, Paul is a liar.

6. Christ says that the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ must go to the whole world as a testimony to all the nations and THEN the end will come (Matt. 24:14). That is how ‘My Spirit’ will be poured out on ‘All Mankind.’ Acts 2:17. That gospel was never accepted by Israel 2000 years ago, and had no opportunity to go to the whole world. They crucified the King, remember?

7. Paul says that the ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3) is going to take his seat in the Temple and display himself as being God. 2Thes. 2:4. John describes the same ‘beast’ (Rev. 13) being worshipped by the whole world (Rev. 13:8) and all taking his mark (Rev. 13:16+17). None of that happened in earth history, and must be all future.

8. Christ describes cataclysmic events that affect the whole world: “of the things which are coming upon the world” (Luke 21:26). Since the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is going to the ‘whole world’ (Matt. 24:14), then you know the beast is after them all over the planet. What the Romans did in 70 AD in no way compares to what Scripture says.

9. The Judgment (Matthew 25:31-33) is part of His coming in glory with His angels (Matt. 24:30+31). That Judgment has yet to happen (Rev. 20:11-15), and there is only one ‘Your coming’ (Matt. 24:3). Therefore, Scripture says it was impossible for Christ to come in 70 AD.

10. None of the Preterists here have given me reason to adopt the ‘already fulfilled’ interpretation. They appear to have many different reasons for changing the meaning of ‘this generation’ right here in Matthew 24:34. Some borrow context from Matthew 23, while others use the Lexicon to change what Christ tells us from that chapter. Still others simply insist that Christ really knew ‘when,’ but Christ Himself says the Son does not know. Matt. 24:36.

I could perhaps give you a dozen more reasons why I could never believe Christ already came 2000 years ago, from an understanding of the ‘end of the age,’ and ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies. Like, if these people of this generation were living to see all these things, when why did they not just write about it? Where is the evidence that Romans fulfilled God’s Prophecies in 70 AD? NOPLACE! Heh. Christ is coming to do that at the ‘end of the age.’ The Preterist interpretation simply does not add up for these and a host of other reasons.

In Christ,

Terral

[Makarios]

1. If Christ knows that He is speaking to the Generation living in that day, there is NO REASON to speak to them in signs and parables. All He had to say is “your generation” instead of “this generation” that sees all these signs.

"This" generation has the same meaning as "your" generation. It is artificial to suggest that Jesus had to say "your" in order to be speaking of his contemporaries. Every other instance of "this generation" in the gospels always refers to that 1st century audience.

What generation did Jesus have in mind in Mat. 23:36: "I tell you the truth, this generation will be held responsible for all these things!"? I don't know of any futurists (you may be the first) who think this refers to any generation than the one Jesus was then speaking to.


2. Christ just told you that He does not know when any of these things take place*. Matt. 24:36. Therefore, He cannot know if He is speaking of the generation living in that day, or of one 10,000 years in the future. He knows ‘what,’ but has no clue about ‘when.’ He tells them that the generation to see all these things (all the signs) will see Him at the door (vs. 33).

This has been anwered many times already-- Jesus did not know the exact day or hour, but he did know the "generation." Why do you think this explanation is inadequate?

3. The events of Matthew 24:3-31 have yet to happen on this planet. Christ is not talking about the Romans coming in 70 AD, when talking about all the stones being thrown down.

This is mere assertion. A good case can be made that all these events did happen.


4. Christ is describing the last years of the ‘day of the Lord’ (Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, 2Pet. 3:10-12) and the Judgment (Matt. 25:31-33) that follows at the ‘end of the age.’ Joel says that “My Spirit” must be poured out on “All Mankind” first! (Joel 2:17, Acts 2:17). That has yet to happen.

Peter said this did happen: Acts 2:16 "But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel..."

5. Paul says that our ‘His body’ church (Col. 1:24) is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2), or when that day BEGINS. Take a good look around and realize that we are still here. So the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies must ALL be future. Otherwise, Paul is a liar.


You have not shown that 1 Thes. 4:7 and 2 Thes. 2:2 are referring to the same thing as Mat. 24. You are merely asserting this to be the case.


6. Christ says that the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ must go to the whole world as a testimony to all the nations and THEN the end will come (Matt. 24:14).

Mat 24:14 was fulfilled in the 1st century: Rom 1:8; Rom 10:18; Rom 15:24; Rom 16:26; Col 1:6; Col 1:23; 2Ti 4:17.

7. Paul says that the ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3) is going to take his seat in the Temple and display himself as being God. 2Thes. 2:4. John describes the same ‘beast’ (Rev. 13) being worshipped by the whole world (Rev. 13:8) and all taking his mark (Rev. 13:16+17). None of that happened in earth history, and must be all future.

Whether or not these things happened in the past or are yet to happen has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of "this generation" in Mat. 24:34.


8. Christ describes cataclysmic events that affect the whole world: “of the things which are coming upon the world” (Luke 21:26). Since the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is going to the ‘whole world’ (Matt. 24:14), then you know the beast is after them all over the planet. What the Romans did in 70 AD in no way compares to what Scripture says.

The word translated "world" has reference to the Roman empire (see Luke 2:1). Paul claimed that the empire had been reached in the 1st century (see my answer to #6, above).

9. The Judgment (Matthew 25:31-33) is part of His coming in glory with His angels (Matt. 24:30+31). That Judgment has yet to happen (Rev. 20:11-15), and there is only one ‘Your coming’ (Matt. 24:3). Therefore, Scripture says it was impossible for Christ to come in 70 AD.

This is mere assertion. A case can be made that there is more than one "coming."

10. None of the Preterists here have given me reason to adopt the ‘already fulfilled’ interpretation. They appear to have many different reasons for changing the meaning of ‘this generation’ right here in Matthew 24:34. Some borrow context from Matthew 23, while others use the Lexicon to change what Christ tells us from that chapter. Still others simply insist that Christ really knew ‘when,’ but Christ Himself says the Son does not know. Matt. 24:36.

I believe you are the one changing the meaning of "this generation" to fit your pre-conceived theological system. Every other instance of "this generation" in the gospels means Jesus' contemporaries. You have given no reason to believe that the meaning changes in Mat 24:34 to refer to some other generation.

I could perhaps give you a dozen more reasons why I could never believe Christ already came 2000 years ago, from an understanding of the ‘end of the age,’ and ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies. Like, if these people of this generation were living to see all these things, when why did they not just write about it? Where is the evidence that Romans fulfilled God’s Prophecies in 70 AD? NOPLACE! Heh. Christ is coming to do that at the ‘end of the age.’ The Preterist interpretation simply does not add up for these and a host of other reasons.

I think you are confusing the preterist interpretation of Mat. 24 with a full preterist interpretation of all the prophesies in the NT. These are not the same thing.

When you say there is no evidence the Roman fulfilled God's prophesies in AD 70 that tells me you have not read much on this topic. I suggest you pick up a copy of NT Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" and read especially chapter 8. He gives plenty of reasons for interpreting the Olivet Discourse from a preterist perspective.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

This is mere assertion. A good case can be made that all these events did happen. Hey Makarios. I see you got the memo from Preterist Central, that whenever Terral Terral makes a point that we are to blow it off as mere assertion.

That is the only explanation as to why you, and a half dozen other preterist have accused Terral of arugment by assertion.

It couldn't possibly be becaue Terral lacks the ability to produce a substative argument.

Or could it?

[Makarios]

Hey Makarios. I see you got the memo from Preterist Central, that whenever Terral Terral makes a point that we are to blow it off as mere assertion.

That is the only explanation as to why you, and a half dozen other preterist have accused Terral of arugment by assertion.

It couldn't possibly be becaue Terral lacks the ability to produce a substative argument.

Or could it?

Yes, I am programmed to obey all such memos.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Yes, I am programmed to obey all such memos.
:borg:

[JamesD]

Remember jesus said he was at the door. NOT 2,000 + years down the hallway! I've seen you people twist those words a thousand different ways. But it still comes back to the original text.



Matthew 24:32-34 (NKJV) "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."






James Stuart Russell said, "Words have no meaning if this language, uttered on so solemn an occasion, and so precise and express in its import, does not affirm the near approach of the great event which occupies the whole discourse of our Lord." I agree, if this language doesn't mean that the things he spoke of are near, it doesn't mean anything.

"Now learn this parable from the fig tree:"

A popular interpretation of this passage considers the fig tree as a type, or illustration of Israel. According to this view, the fact that Israel became a nation on September 12, 1948 constitutes the budding of the fig tree, and may be taken as proof that the Lord's return is "near" in our day. We'll discuss this further a little later.

I think that the Lord is simply giving us a universal illustration here which the parallel account in Luke makes clear.




Luke 21:29-30 (NKJV) "Then He spoke to them a parable: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near."

This is just a simple illustration. When you see the leaves on the tree begin to come out, you know that summer is near. You can understand that, can't you? Jesus said that, just like you know that summer is near when you see the leaves coming out on the trees, "so also" when you see the things come to pass that I have been talking about, (The gospel preached to all the world, the abomination of desolation, the great tribulation, and the Son of man come in the clouds of heaven) you know that the end is near. It is just like someone standing at the door about to enter.

James used this same illustration of "standing at the door" to speak of the nearness of the Lord's return (James 5:7-9).




Matthew 24:33 (NKJV), "So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors!"

There is question about what the "it" is that is near. This question is cleared up in the parallel passage in Luke.




Luke 21:31 (NKJV) "So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near."

Now, we know from other verses that the kingdom of God had come to them already (Luke 11:20; 17:20-21). In our text in Matthew 24:33, He is referring to the full manifestation of the kingdom that would come in power and glory at 70 AD.




Matthew 24:34 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

Jesus here, very plainly and very clearly, tells His disciples that ALL of the things he had mentioned would come to pass in THEIR GENERATION. This includes the gospel being preached in all the world, the abomination of desolation, the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of man. This is so clear that it greatly troubles those who hold to a futuristic eschatology. Listen to some comments made on this verse.

Because of his physical view of the nature of the Second coming, he felt that it hadn't happened yet, and therefore Jesus had been wrong. That would be, in fact, much more than embarrassing, it would be devastating to the credibility of Jesus. If Jesus was wrong, as Lewis says he was, what else might he have been wrong about? Will those who believe in Him truly have everlasting life? Jesus wasn't wrong, Lewis was the one who was wrong. We can count on the truthfulness of what Jesus tells us. Aren't you glad of that?

This verse doesn't fit into their eschatology so they would like to eliminate it. This verse is devastating to a futuristic eschatology, so let's examine it carefully and make sure we understand exactly what Jesus is saying. Let's start by examining the meaning of the word generation. Generation, in our text, comes from the Greek word genea, which means an age of around 40 years. In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, we can see that the "genea" means, "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." William F. Arndt and Wilber Gingrich, (A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature) define "genea" as, "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Contemporaries."

If you look at the way Jesus used the word "generation," I think it will be abundantly clear that it always refers to His contemporaries, the Jewish people of His own time period. Let's look at a few of the uses of "generation". In Matthew 23:35-36, Jesus is in the temple speaking to the Jews, he says that all the judgment that he had spoken about would come upon them. I don't know of any commentator who understands this as referring to any other than the existing generation.

In Luke 17:24-25, what generation did Christ suffer many things from, and what generation rejected Him? It is clear, He is speaking of His contemporaries. Look at how some of the translations deal with this verse.




New English Bible: "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all."




Today's English Version: "Remember this! All these things will happen before the people now living have all died."

Moffatt's Translation: "I tell you truly, the present generation will not pass away, till all this happens." Weymouth's Translation: "I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation will certainly not pass away until all this has taken place."






These translations make it quite clear. The meaning of the word was that of the "present" generation in the time of Christ; not to a future generation thousands of years away. So in etymology and usage, "generation" means those born at the same time, Contemporaries.

Every time "this generation" is mentioned in the New Testament, it is always spoken by Jesus (Mat.11:16; 12:41-42, Mark 8:12, Luke 7:31; 11:30-32,50,51; 17:25). In each and every verse, it refers to the generation that was alive during Jesus' time. Other verses Jesus used "generation" in is Mat.12:39,45; 16:4; 17:17, Mark 8:38; 9:19, Luke 1:48,50; 9:41; 11:29; 16:8. These all refer to an age of 30-40 years, and never as an age of 1000's of years. Here are all other uses of the word "generation" (Greek word genea, word #1074): Mat.1:17, Acts 2:40; 8:33; 13:36; 14:16 (times); 15:21 (time), Eph.3:5,21 (Ages…not age. This doesn't conflict with many "generations"), Phil.2:15 (nation), Col.1:26 (generations), and Heb.3:10.

How long is a generation?

John Walvoord said, "A generation is normally from thirty to one hundred years." Now, he is the only one I know of who gives it that broad of a span. Most commentators see a generation as referring to a thirty to forty year time. More important then that, what does the Bible say about the time of a generation? Let's look and see.

God calls 40 years a generation in Numbers 32:13 and in Hebrews 3:8-10. In the genealogical table of Matthew 1:17, we have data to estimate the length of a generation. It tells us that from the captivity in Babylon until Christ are fourteen generations. Now the date of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is said to be 586 BC. From 586 BC until the birth of Christ would be about 586 years which, divided by fourteen, makes the average length of a generation about 41 years.

Forty years is a significant number in the Bible, the children of Israel wondered in the wilderness for forty years before entering the promise land (Numbers 32:13). The New Testament saints also were in a transition period for forty years before entering the New Jerusalem, which is above. David reigned for forty years. I believe that Christ's reign from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, was also a forty year reign which Revelation 20 refers to as the millennial reign of Christ.

Some have tried to twist the etymology of the word "generation" in Matthew 24:34 to make it mean "race," and try to make Jesus say that all these things would happen before the "race" of Jews had passed away. By doing this, they think they can expand the time of the second coming by thousands of years. There is no biblical or linguistic justification for such a position. Generation does NOT mean race!

C.I. Scofield, in his Bible's reference to this verse (Matt. 24:34), recognized this, and actually SWITCHED the definition of the word from that of genea to that of genos, which is an entirely different word!

Scofield said, (p. 1034, old edition, Scofield Reference Bible): "Gr. genea, the primary definition of which is, 'race, kind, family, stock, breed.' (So all lexicons.) That the word is used in this sense here is sure because none of 'these things,' the world-wide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation-- nation, or family of Israel-- will be preserved unto 'these things'; a promise wonderfully fulfilled to this day."

Scofield used the wrong Greek word with his definition. He did so because of his view of the nature of the second coming. Since he felt that these things hadn't happened yet he had to change the meaning of the word genea. The definition he gives is for the Greek word, "genos." Genos is not the word used in Matthew 24:34. Peter uses the word "genos" in 1 Peter 2:9: Here it is evident that "genos" means, kind, nation, offspring. But this is not the word used in Matthew 24:34.

The following quote by David Chilton is very informative: "Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51;18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24!"

What Jesus meant by all those things happening in that generation, including the parousia of Christ, was that they would all happen while some of those folks to whom He preached were still alive, just as he said they would be in Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 8:38 - 9:1, and Luke 9:26-27. He also told His disciples this in:




Matthew 10:23 (NKJV) "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

Dispensationalists, George Meisiner tries to explain "this generation" this way, "Because Jesus speaks of Jews who see all the signs of the end times, it is best to understand 'generation' as those contemporaries living during the Tribulation. 'This' generation, then, is the Jewish contemporaries coexisting during Daniel's 70th Week; they see all eleven signs of Matthew 24:4-24. In other words, only those who see all the buds of the fig tree, or the signs, are the antecedent of "this generation."

The tribulational generation 'will by no means pass away,' emphasizing its existence throughout the seven year period; events do not annihilate them. Jesus does not mean that each and every Jew survives. Over half of them do not, yet that generation, as a whole, goes through the entire seven years 'till all these things are fulfilled.'" ("The Parable of the Fig Tree" (Matthew 24:32-36) by George E. Meisinger")

So, he is saying that it does not mean Jesus' contemporaries, but the generation that is alive when the tribulation starts, which he sees as some time in our future. Hal Lindsey calls this the "terminal generation." Along the same line, some say that the "generation" Jesus mentioned would be the generation following the event of Israel becoming a nation in 1948. Then, taking a generation as forty years, they said that the second coming would happen in September of 1988. Do you remember the book, "88 reasons why the rapture will happen in 1988?" Hal Lindsey said, "When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the 'fig tree' put forth its first leaves.

Jesus said that this would indicate that He was 'at the door,' ready to return. Then He said, 'Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34 NASB).

What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs -- chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so." (The Late Great Planet Earth, pp. 53-54).

Hal says that the chief sign would be the rebirth of Israel. Where in Matthew 24 do you see anything remotely close to speaking about a rebirth of Israel? It is speaking about Israel's destruction, not its rebirth! He also says that within forty years of 1948, all these things could take place. Well, it has been fifty years and the temple has not even been rebuilt, so it will be a good while before it can be destroyed. It looks like Hal was way off.

Another Dispensationalists, Robert Deffinbaugh, deals with it this way, "In verse 32, Jesus said that 'this generation' would not pass away until all of 'these things' had come to pass. The difficulty with these words should be obvious. How can Jesus say that 'this generation' would not pass away until all these things come to pass when 'all these things' occur over what we can now see to be nearly 2,000 years? The events described in these verses encompass many generations, so that no one generation will see all of them fulfilled in their lifetime.

The difficulties with this verse have led some to attempt to redefine the term 'generation,' so that it may be taken more broadly, to mean either 'mankind' or 'Israel.' I do not think that the context of Luke (or the term 'generation' itself) will allow this broadening. I believe that that generation was specifically in view. That generation had a particular privilege and a particular responsibility, both related to being those who witnessed the coming of the Christ. That generation also had a particular judgment, due to its rejection of Messiah.

I understand, therefore, that when Jesus said 'that generation' would not pass away until 'all these things' had come to pass, He was referring to that generation of Israelites. How, then, do we square this with the fact that 'all these things' must come to pass, when we know that some will fall upon generations to come? My best answer is that 'all these things' really happen twice, not once. They will happen once, to that generation. And, they will happen a second time, in the last days, related to Christ's return. Thus, Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., in fulfillment of our Lord's words. And so, too, Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles again, during the tribulation (Revelation 11:2-3). There is also a sense in which much of what our Lord predicted would happen (e.g. persecution, betrayal by family, etc.) is something which saints have experienced throughout the intervening centuries.

Our Lord's words, then, have relevance to those who heard Him speak these words. They also have had relevance to the saints over the centuries. And they will be relevant to the saints of the last days as well. No one dares to take these words idly, as though they will relate to a future people at a future time. Jesus does not allow this mentality to prevail." ("Luke: The Gospel of the Gentiles" by Robert Deffinbaugh)

Now let me ask you, does Jesus say, "all these things will come upon this and that generation?" He said "all these things" would be fulfilled in His generation. So is the gospel preached to all the world twice? Are there two abomination of desolations? Are there two tribulations? Is the Son of man to return in clouds twice? Where is one verse of Scripture to indicate this double fulfillment? There is absolutely nothing in Matthew 24 to indicate a double fulfillment, nothing!

When Jesus said "all these things" would occur before that generation was over, He was talking about everything that He had been discussing from verse 4 through verse 33. This included the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory. The disciple's question had been when will your parousia be, and in verse 34, He tells them it will happen in their generation.

If the Lord's teaching on His second coming doesn't agree with our concept of it, what should we do? We need to change our concepts to line up with His teaching, not twist His words to make them fit our views. This is the Word of God, let's not twist it and distort it, let's simply submit to it.

part 1

[JamesD]

Part 2




Heinrich Meyer (1852) said, "That the second advent itself is intended to be included, is likewise evident from v. 36, in which the subject of the day and hour of the advent is introduced."

Before closing, I would like to expound a little on the idea of generation meaning race. We have already shown that this is not a legitimate translation of genea. But for those who attempt to translate it as "this race of Jews will not pass, till all these things are fulfilled," it must be understood that THERE IS NO JEWISH RACE TODAY.

Many people today still consider the Jewish people as a race. Numerous verses identify Israel, in New Testament prophecy, in terms of their tribal associations; however, these associations do not extend beyond the first century. One example of this is Matthew 24:30, which we looked at last week, where Christ declares that "the tribes of the (land) shall mourn."

After the destruction of Jerusalem, however, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was scattered throughout the earth, and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the Temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race.

Consider the following quotations:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
"The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . ."

"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

John Bray said, "Many Christians do not know that the vast majority of so-called Jews in the world today are the Ashkenazim Jews, while the remainder of them are the Sephardim Jews. The Ashkenazim Jews have as their background not the nation of Israel but a country called Khazaria, which country at one time was the largest country in Europe. The settlers of Khazaria were Turks and Huns. In A.D. 740 King Bulan of Khazaria decided to adopt the Judaistic religion for his country. A number of Jews were already living there. So he converted to Judaism, along with all his officials, and whole nation ended up being known as a nation of Jews. In 970 Russia came in and dominated the situation, and the Khazars were scattered, many of them going down into Poland and Lithuania. Where at the dawn of our modern civilization the largest concentration of Jews were found. Today, the largest percentage of so-called Jews in the world have as their background this group of people." (This information is fully documented in detail in John Bray's book, Israel in Bible Prophecy)

Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970)
"In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert." (vol. 14, p. 214)

H.G. Wells
"There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Turkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).

Therefore, we can clearly and confidently assert that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be.

These facts are devastating to Dispensationalism. Obviously, if the nation that they call the heir of Israel is shown to have no relationship to the pre-desolation nation, there is no credibility to that system. There are no twelve tribes today, there is no Jewish race today.

We know that there is no possibility that this passage of the Olivet Discourse has any relation to a future Jewish race, since there is no such thing. Since the fall of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the nation of Israel in the first century, the nation calling itself Israel has consisted of a collection of people from nearly every nation in the world, with no relation to the twelve tribes of the historical nation known as Israel. Any attempts to state that there is, or will ever again be, a race of Israelites are proven to be futile and of no force. There is no Jewish race. So, as you can see, to try to translate the word genea as race, does not fly.

Bishop Newton commenting on Matthew 24:34 said this, "It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is here said, so positively, in the conclusion; All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation. It seemeth as if our Saviour was aware of some misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, verse 35, 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.'"

This term for generation can't mean "race", for the Greek word genos (#1085), which means "race", would have been used. And it cannot mean "an age of 1000's of years"", for the Greek word aion (#165), which means "age", or "a period of time", would've been used. Instead, genea (#1074) was used.

Matthew 24 was a prophecy that has already been fulfilled, and therefore, has no future fulfillment at all today. It all happened in the generation that heard Jesus speak these words. Jesus said of the days of Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD:

Luke 21:22 (NKJV) "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

All prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the life time of the generation to which Jesus spoke. Let's not twist and distort Jesus' words to make them fit our views, let's change our views to line up with His words.

What should a follow of Christ think of Jews? Romans 2:28-29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Followers of Christ ARE Jews!

Please do not double post to get around the 24000 character post limit. It is against Campus decorum. thank you

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Good Post JamesD. Lets see part II! Hey moderator :poke:!

[JamesD]

I am not double posting. Each post was different.



Heinrich Meyer (1852) said, "That the second advent itself is intended to be included, is likewise evident from v. 36, in which the subject of the day and hour of the advent is introduced."

Before closing, I would like to expound a little on the idea of generation meaning race. We have already shown that this is not a legitimate translation of genea. But for those who attempt to translate it as "this race of Jews will not pass, till all these things are fulfilled," it must be understood that THERE IS NO JEWISH RACE TODAY.

Many people today still consider the Jewish people as a race. Numerous verses identify Israel, in New Testament prophecy, in terms of their tribal associations; however, these associations do not extend beyond the first century. One example of this is Matthew 24:30, which we looked at last week, where Christ declares that "the tribes of the (land) shall mourn."

After the destruction of Jerusalem, however, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was scattered throughout the earth, and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the Temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race.

Consider the following quotations:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
"The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . ."

"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

John Bray said, "Many Christians do not know that the vast majority of so-called Jews in the world today are the Ashkenazim Jews, while the remainder of them are the Sephardim Jews. The Ashkenazim Jews have as their background not the nation of Israel but a country called Khazaria, which country at one time was the largest country in Europe. The settlers of Khazaria were Turks and Huns. In A.D. 740 King Bulan of Khazaria decided to adopt the Judaistic religion for his country. A number of Jews were already living there. So he converted to Judaism, along with all his officials, and whole nation ended up being known as a nation of Jews. In 970 Russia came in and dominated the situation, and the Khazars were scattered, many of them going down into Poland and Lithuania. Where at the dawn of our modern civilization the largest concentration of Jews were found. Today, the largest percentage of so-called Jews in the world have as their background this group of people." (This information is fully documented in detail in John Bray's book, Israel in Bible Prophecy)

Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970)
"In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert." (vol. 14, p. 214)

H.G. Wells
"There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Turkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).

Therefore, we can clearly and confidently assert that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be.

These facts are devastating to Dispensationalism. Obviously, if the nation that they call the heir of Israel is shown to have no relationship to the pre-desolation nation, there is no credibility to that system. There are no twelve tribes today, there is no Jewish race today.

We know that there is no possibility that this passage of the Olivet Discourse has any relation to a future Jewish race, since there is no such thing. Since the fall of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the nation of Israel in the first century, the nation calling itself Israel has consisted of a collection of people from nearly every nation in the world, with no relation to the twelve tribes of the historical nation known as Israel. Any attempts to state that there is, or will ever again be, a race of Israelites are proven to be futile and of no force. There is no Jewish race. So, as you can see, to try to translate the word genea as race, does not fly.

Bishop Newton commenting on Matthew 24:34 said this, "It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is here said, so positively, in the conclusion; All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation. It seemeth as if our Saviour was aware of some misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, verse 35, 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.'"

This term for generation can't mean "race", for the Greek word genos (#1085), which means "race", would have been used. And it cannot mean "an age of 1000's of years"", for the Greek word aion (#165), which means "age", or "a period of time", would've been used. Instead, genea (#1074) was used.

Matthew 24 was a prophecy that has already been fulfilled, and therefore, has no future fulfillment at all today. It all happened in the generation that heard Jesus speak these words. Jesus said of the days of Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD:

Luke 21:22 (NKJV) "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

All prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the life time of the generation to which Jesus spoke. Let's not twist and distort Jesus' words to make them fit our views, let's change our views to line up with His words.

What should a follow of Christ think of Jews? Romans 2:28-29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Followers of Christ ARE Jews!

Reposting a previously edited post by a moderator is a big no-no. Also, please check your PMs.

[Makarios]

JamesD, that was the best explanaton and defense of a position I have seen in awhile. Thanks!

[Sheepdog]

Terral, you state that "The generation living to see ‘all these things’ is the one to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age” and Him “at the door.” Matt. 24:33."

In context that generation is the one Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. Why do you think it refers to some other generation?

because he has to in order to save his interpretation from it's own inconsistency.

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog:

No sir. Your goose is already cooked, and your question does not mean anything. Christ already told the Twelve that He did not know the day or the hour, and you still are not getting it; not even close . . .

aparently not, because i don't see why Jesus couldn't know the general range of time it would come in despite not knowing the precise day and hour. furthermore, i don't see how He can know the events leading up to "the Day" without knowing the general timepan which it would come in. you are just playing a spook game with us.

The reason is because the ‘day of the Lord’ comes as a thief in the night. 1Thes. 5:1+2. Can you begin to grasp what that really and truly means? Christ is describing ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+) events that occur at the END and FINAL years of the DAY OF THE LORD.

ahh, but it doesn't say Jesus didn't know when the "final years" will come, only the day and the hour. but keep digging your hole.

Daniel describes the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Dan. 12:11+12) and then ends the prophecy with the ‘end of the age.’ Dan. 12:13. Christ cannot know ‘when’ these END OF THE AGE events take place, because nobody except the “FATHER ALONE” even knows when the ‘Day of the Lord’ BEGINS!

it's irrelevant; even if the Father only knew when the Day would come, Jesus could know it was soon after the signs. Or are you interpreting the "day" in Matt. 24 as being figurative? please tell me you're not

The generation to be living at the ‘end of the age’ comes along ‘a thousand years’ AFTER the ‘day of the Lord’ is ‘AT HAND.’ 2Thes. 2:2. That moment marks the time that our current mystery church (Eph. 5:32, Col. 1:24-27) is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) and gathered to the Lord. Doing your math, that means the generation living at the ‘end of the age’ will be the 25th generation living from the time our church is Raptured out of here.

wow.... this is worse than i thought. have you ever read any of those verses in context, BTW? 2Th. 2 (the whole chapter) is the very passage of Scripture that won me over to Preterism. Read the whole thing if you want to see why.

[font=Georgia][size=3]Because you are trying to give a definition to ‘this generation’ that is way out of true context to Christ’s teaching.

That is, the TRUE context is the context Terral arbitrarily made up to keep his interpretation from being torched. :no:

are we done yet? or is your interpretation still twitching?

[Sheepdog]

JamesD, double posting means you were trying to circumvent the 24 thousand character limit by separating what should have been one post into more than one. it doesn't matter of the two posts contain different content.

[Terral]

Hi Sheepdog:
Terral Original >> No sir. Your goose is already cooked, and your question does not mean anything. Christ already told the Twelve that He did not know the day or the hour, and you still are not getting it; not even close . . .

Sheepdog >> Apparently not, because I don't see why Jesus couldn't know the general range of time it would come in despite not knowing the precise day and hour. furthermore, I don't see how He can know the events leading up to "the Day" without knowing the general timepan which it would come in. you are just playing a spook game with us.
The operative phrase is, “I don’t see . . .” Christ is describing ‘day of the Lord’ events in Matthew 24. One of my greatest desires since coming here is that folks would educate themselves on Day of the Lord and End of the Age Events. We have been through this in the last post, Sheep, but here we go again for the benefit of the readers to this thread . . . You must be aware that Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21 . . . right? Both are describing events relating to the ‘day of the Lord.’ You see Christ quoting Joel also in Matthew 24:29 (Joel 2:10, 31, 3:15) along with Zeph. 1:15, etc..

If you can understand that Christ is describing events relating to the ‘day of the Lord, then this will make sense: Paul tells us that the ‘day of the Lord’ comes as a thief in the night. 1Thes. 5:1+2. Christ makes a reference to the relationship of the ‘head of the house’ and the ‘thief’ in Matt. 24:43 for the SAME REASON. Christ does not know ‘when’ these ‘end of the age’ events will take place, because He has no clue as to when the ‘day of the Lord’ is going to . . . BEGIN! I do not know how to make this simpler to understand, partner. Many times the blind must lead the blind, because they will not accept assistance from anybody else. I know, we already did this once . . . and you said,
Sheepdog >> ahh, but it doesn't say Jesus didn't know when the "final years" will come, only the day and the hour. but keep digging your hole.
Heh . . . There are no eyes behind all that hair over the Sheepdog’s face. If NOBODY knows when the ‘day of the Lord’ begins, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know when it ends. It goes like this Sheep: You watch football right? The game is going to last about 3 to 3.5 hours usually. For this example let’s say the game lasts exactly 3 hours to the minute. Okay, partner, what time will the game be over? Come on . . . you know there are going to be 4 quarters right? There is going to be a lot of running and passing . . . and a half time show. Suppose you had a vision and could see all the details of ‘what’ was going to happen. Okay, now . . . what time is the game going to be over? Come on, Sheep, it lasts exactly 3 hours . . . To know ‘when’ the game is going to be over, then you must know what time it will . . . begin! Nobody knows ‘when’ the ‘day of the Lord’ is going to BEGIN but ‘The Father Alone.’ Matt. 24:36. This is one of those ‘time and epochs’ things, and the Father’s own authority. Acts 1:6+7. Therefore, stop saying that Christ knows ‘when,’ because that is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know but ‘The Father Alone.’ It is like a boy and his dad going fishing for four hours on Saturday. When are they getting home? D’oh!
Sheep >> It's irrelevant; even if the Father only knew when the Day would come, Jesus could know it was soon after the signs. Or are you interpreting the "day" in Matt. 24 as being figurative? please tell me you're not
You are the Preterist in this debate . . . Christ is most definitely referring to not knowing the day or the hour, which is known by ‘The Father Alone.’ Matt. 24:36. I cannot believe you are going to sit there and type out the words that “Jesus could know . . .” Of course EVERYBODY knows it soon after the signs take place. Christ is sitting on the Mount of Olives telling the Twelve about the End of the Age. He told them to go and take the Gospel to all the nations (Matt. 24:14). Peter spoke of “His Spirit” being poured out on “All mankind” in Acts 2:17, as part of the ‘day of the Lord’ (vs. 20). Peter knew he had to sell the kingdom to Jerusalem first (Acts 1:8), and move on from there. He was not looking at the ‘end’ coming any time soon. Paul shows him still going to the Jews only in Gal. 2:9 over two decades later. He most definitely did not conquer the whole world with the Gospel of the kingdom in the next 20 years. Heh, not even close . . .
Terral Original >> The generation to be living at the ‘end of the age’ comes along ‘a thousand years’ AFTER the ‘day of the Lord’ is ‘AT HAND.’ 2Thes. 2:2. That moment marks the time that our current mystery church (Eph. 5:32, Col. 1:24-27) is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) and gathered to the Lord. Doing your math, that means the generation living at the ‘end of the age’ will be the 25th generation living from the time our church is Raptured out of here.

Sheepdog >> wow.... this is worse than i thought. have you ever read any of those verses in context, BTW? 2Th. 2 (the whole chapter) is the very passage of Scripture that won me over to Preterism. Read the whole thing if you want to see why.
I have been writing commentary on 2Thessalonians for decades, partner. Telling somebody to read the whole chapter is not an argument. Many folks stumble and fall through 2Thes. 2:3-6, and remain pinned there for the rest of their lives. People here are doing the same thing in Matthew 24, and remind me of Mrs. Fletcher from the security ads on TV; “I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up!” The ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3+4) is revealed ‘in his time’ (2Thes. 2:6), which is during the ‘day of the Lord’ (2Thes. 2:2) Christ is describing in Matthew 24. The ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2Thes. 2:7) is at work in our day even now; and is the opposing teaching to the ‘mystery of Christ.’ Eph. 3:4, Col. 4:3. In other words, just like the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) is spiritual and has many members, the body of lawlessness also has many members. They are the people who reject the gospel (2Thes. 2:10-12) and believe what is false. Paul used that ‘physical’ coming (2Thes. 2:2-6) to introduce the teaching on the ‘mystery of lawlessness,’ and not to teach that a physical ‘antichrist’ is coming in our day today. He cannot come until ‘in his time’ at the ‘end of the age.’

Your posts are lacking in statements supported by Scripture, Sheep. Saying that another is taking things out of context is proof of the fact that we disagree. Since we are on opposite sides of this debate, then that fact is already a given. Next time try proving your case by statements supported by God’s Word.

In Christ,

Terral

[Makarios]

Terral, you are all over the map on this. Why don't you stick to Matthew and answer how "this generation" can mean anything other than the people Jesus was then speaking to?

Even non-preterist scholars like D.A. Carson acknowledge that "only with the greatest difficulty [can Mat. 24:34] be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke."(p.507 of his commentary)

[JamesD]

Heh . . . There are no eyes behind all that hair over the Sheepdog’s face. If NOBODY knows when the ‘day of the Lord’ begins, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know when it ends. It goes like this Sheep: You watch football right? The game is going to last about 3 to 3.5 hours usually. For this example let’s say the game lasts exactly 3 hours to the minute. Okay, partner, what time will the game be over? Come on . . . you know there are going to be 4 quarters right? There is going to be a lot of running and passing . . . and a half time show. Suppose you had a vision and could see all the details of ‘what’ was going to happen. Okay, now . . . what time is the game going to be over? Come on, Sheep, it lasts exactly 3 hours . . . To know ‘when’ the game is going to be over, then you must know what time it will . . . begin! Nobody knows ‘when’ the ‘day of the Lord’ is going to BEGIN but ‘The Father Alone.’ Matt. 24:36. This is one of those ‘time and epochs’ things, and the Father’s own authority. Acts 1:6+7. Therefore, stop saying that Christ knows ‘when,’ because that is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know but ‘The Father Alone.’

Ok Terral you watch football right?
The coach (jesus) says I'm leaving the game now. But I'll be back during THIS game (generation).
The coach (jesus) said he didn't know what period, or how much time there will be on the clock when he gets back. Only the owner of the team and stadium (god) knows.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But the coach (jesus) say the fans in the stands TODAY, (this generation) will see me come back during THIS game.
Matthew 24:34 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
Not next game!
Not next season!
Not 2000+ seasons from now!
Twist the coach's words anyway you like.

Luke 21:22 (NKJV) "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Matthew 10:23 (NKJV) "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
Translated into football lingo:
"If the press gives you a hard time run from hotdog stand to hotdog stand, or dressing room to dressing room. Before you run out of places to duck the media I'LL BE BACK before THIS game ends."

The coach (jesus) leaves the stadium.

[dizzle]

JamesD, you need to answer my PM please.

[Sheepdog]

yeah. go ahead and think i'm the one who's blind if it makes you feel better. i couldn't care less.

nothing you have given me indicates that the day Jesus refers to means more than a specific day in history. nor does it indicate that Jesus refers to the beginning of the events Jesus refers to, but the day that He will "come" like lightning (which actually comes at the end of his section on the signs, so unless you don't think this is chronological, your grasping at air).

i find it funny that you look at Peter's actions and suppose that he had not expectation of a soon return... the fact that all the Apostles (especially Paul) make haste to share the gospel could just as well imply the opposite. even Peter ends up going to the Gentiles on one ocassion: have you read Acts 10 lately?

hope that commentary of yours on 2Th. is going well. I'm sure someone out there will need it to get his or her bonfire going :lol:

[Terral]

Makarios:
Makarios >> Terral, you are all over the map on this. Why don't you stick to Matthew and answer how "this generation" can mean anything other than the people Jesus was then speaking to?
That is what you just read above (Post #22). Christ was not just teaching a lesson here. He is describing events leading up to the most prophesied about event in all of Scripture. The right interpretation is the one that says what God is saying about the 'day of the Lord' and the 'end of the age,' without creating a single contradiction. My arguments are drafted to be read by the third party reader who has yet to be blinded by Preterism. Asking your debating opponents to slow down to make things fair is not usually a successful tactic. If you come up with an argument to refute one thing I wrote above, then please make your case. Otherwise everything above shall remain standing in this discussion. I retract . . . nothing by starting all over again.
Makarios >> Even non-preterist scholars like D.A. Carson acknowledge that "only with the greatest difficulty [can Mat. 24:34] be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke."(p.507 of his commentary)
If you care to use any of his arguments and support them with Scripture, then please be my guest. Otherwise he is just somebody else with an opinion. When I started refuting Dee Dee’s commentary (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995) ), then I did so as a man setting out to eat an elephant; one bite at a time. It sounds like you are heavily out gunned in this debate . . . GL.

In Christ,

Terral

[Makarios]

Asking your debating opponents to slow down to make things fair is not usually a successful tactic.

Asking for an intelligible argument is usually considered good form.

If you care to use any of his arguments and support them with Scripture, then please be my guest. Otherwise he is just somebody else with an opinion.

I have already given arguments supporting my position. You have yet to answer them.