There ain't no Jesus here.

[RabbiO]

You being Jewish, if you want to study Talmud, I see no problem with that.

Now that you've given one rabbi your thumbs up to study Talmud, want to make it two out of two?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I would suggest that the better interpretation of "this generation" is the most direct one, thus using the "Occam's razor" approach. There's simply no reason to conclude otherwise, especially since this is also what the early church believed. Therefore, the more likely theological approach was that either Jesus was wrong, or he was misinterpreted, or that the author(s) screwed up in the writing. Any other attempt involves using theological gymnastics in such a way so as to come out looking like a pretzel

The scriptures prove themselves. Look carefully at Mark 13:24-31.
'But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily, I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.'
A generation normally accounts for about 25 years. 'This generation' (verse 30) cannot possibly be the one listening to Jesus preach. Jesus is telling them about the events of the return of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven - as the Messiah and Judge. The return will entail the rapture ('and shall gather together his elect from the four winds')
What signs tell of this time? The fig tree (symbol of the Jewish nation) 'putteth forth leaves' as a nation in its infancy. The harvest, which takes place in the summer, is not far off.

 

[metis]

The scriptures prove themselves. Look carefully at Mark 13:24-31.
'But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily, I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.'
A generation normally accounts for about 25 years. 'This generation' (verse 30) cannot possibly be the one listening to Jesus preach. Jesus is telling them about the events of the return of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven - as the Messiah and Judge. The return will entail the rapture ('and shall gather together his elect from the four winds')
What signs tell of this time? The fig tree (symbol of the Jewish nation) 'putteth forth leaves' as a nation in its infancy. The harvest, which takes place in the summer, is not far off.

The above has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The above has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Were you not discussing Preterism, and the passage in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says 'Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled'?
The passage I quoted is a parallel passage from Mark's Gospel. It demonstrates a sequence of events that cannot have been fulfilled in 70 CE (the Preterist Judgment Day).

 

[metis]

Were you not discussing Preterism, and the passage in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says 'Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled'?
The passage I quoted is a parallel passage from Mark's Gospel. It demonstrates a sequence of events that cannot have been fulfilled in 70 CE (the Preterist Judgment Day).

Again, both verses say that "this generation shall not pass ...", and yet we are here almost 2000 years later. Sorry, but but the end was predicted but didn't happen, and Paul's teaching on celibacy and the early church's actions simply do not mesh with what you are believing.

And let me repeat that Jesus must have said something that got interpreted that the end of times would happen soon, but whether the disciples and authors interpreted that correctly is what we don't know. I'm hedging my bets on this, but you're stating certainty, the latter of which is a theological no-no.

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't mention anything about Jesus and Paul's name was originally Saul. What I am not inferring but explicitly stating is that Jews remain opposed to all false messiahs and their cohorts. The opposition may find different expressions, but remains nonetheless.

This is vague as to your context, (Jewish) naming practices.

Since you are most likely not going to actually be 'explicitly' stating anything, even after asked to clarify your statements, it doesn't matter.

 

[Muffled]

In other words, its only after you want to see Jesus in there, that you do.

I believe those were not my words. I believe I saw Jesus in them when Jesus wanted to show them to me and when it would make a difference in my life.

 

[Muffled]

What do you see?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test

I believe I see an old man and an old lady dancing with a scarf in each others teeth. I have Jesus in my life enough so that I don't need to go looking for Him in pictures.

 

[Muffled]

Again, both verses say that "this generation shall not pass ...", and yet we are here almost 2000 years later. Sorry, but but the end was predicted but didn't happen, and Paul's teaching on celibacy and the early church's actions simply do not mesh with what you are believing.

And let me repeat that Jesus must have said something that got interpreted that the end of times would happen soon, but whether the disciples and authors interpreted that correctly is what we don't know. I'm hedging my bets on this, but you're stating certainty, the latter of which is a theological no-no.

I believe the "this generation" refers to the generation that sees the sign of Jesus: Mat 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:....

 

[metis]

I believe the "this generation" refers to the generation that sees the sign of Jesus: Mat 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:....

But he was talking to people then in reference to "this generation", plus your interpretation does not explain why Paul said it was best not to marry, nor why the early church thought that Jesus was coming back soon.

Again, it's possible that his followers misinterpreted what he actually said, or maybe even that the authors didn't write it correctly. Or maybe even that Jesus was wrong-- he never declared he was omniscient.

 

[Muffled]

But he was talking to people then in reference to "this generation", plus your interpretation does not explain why Paul said it was best not to marry, nor why the early church thought that Jesus was coming back soon.

Again, it's possible that his followers misinterpreted what he actually said, or maybe even that the authors didn't write it correctly. Or maybe even that Jesus was wrong-- he never declared he was omniscient.

I believe the context is not who Jesus is speaking to but the answers to the questions asked.

For instance suppose I say that a new president will be inaugurated in 2017 and people will see it. The fact remains that anyone dieing before then won't see it. Only the people alive in 2017 will see it. That is because the context is future not present.

 

[metis]

I believe the context is not who Jesus is speaking to but the answers to the questions asked.

For instance suppose I say that a new president will be inaugurated in 2017 and people will see it. The fact remains that anyone dieing before then won't see it. Only the people alive in 2017 will see it. That is because the context is future not present.

But that still does not and cannot explain Paul's statement and what the early church appears to have believed about this. Granted that we can view your interpretation as a possible option, so I'm not willing to bet my house on what my interpretation is.

 

[Muffled]

But that still does not and cannot explain Paul's statement and what the early church appears to have believed about this. Granted that we can view your interpretation as a possible option, so I'm not willing to bet my house on what my interpretation is.

I believe Jesus said that the end was near but His idea of nearness evidently isn't the same as ours. The others are just re-iterating what Jesus said.

 

[metis]

I believe Jesus said that the end was near but His idea of nearness evidently isn't the same as ours. The others are just re-iterating what Jesus said.

Why do you take that position? And how do you explain Paul's teachings that I mentioned above?

 

[Muffled]

Why do you take that position? And how do you explain Paul's teachings that I mentioned above?

I believe you will have to provide it because I was unable to find it.

I believe I take the view of things that God has. 2000 years is a drop in the ocean compared to all of time. Out of a million years 2000 from the end looks real close.

 

[metis]

I believe you will have to provide it because I was unable to find it.

I Cor. 7:8

 

[Muffled]

I Cor. 7:8

I believe that has nothing to do with the end times. There is no end time context in that scripture.

 

[metis]

I believe that has nothing to do with the end times. There is no end time context in that scripture.

If Paul taught that it's best that they not marry, what does that imply? How else would you interpret that in context?

 

[Muffled]

If Paul taught that it's best that they not marry, what does that imply? How else would you interpret that in context?

I believe I interpret it to mean that Paul sees a spouse as a distraction from the mission. I believe he is incorrect in that team missions can work. He certainly was willing to work with Luke and not consider it a distraction. I believe he was more likely thinking of the case where a person becomes unequally yoked with someone who does not share a desire to be on the mission.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe I interpret it to mean that Paul sees a spouse as a distraction from the mission. I believe he is incorrect in that team missions can work. He certainly was willing to work with Luke and not consider it a distraction. I believe he was more likely thinking of the case where a person becomes unequally yoked with someone who does not share a desire to be on the mission.

Where does anyone say that 'team missions ' can't work?