So, What Happened, Jesus?

[MJ Bailey]

.

Matthew 24

Verses 1- 3, Jesus talks about The destruction of the temple and its implications.

Verses 4-14, Jesus talks about The flow of history until his return.

Verses 15-35, Jesus talks about the sign of His coming and the end of the age.*


Starting at verse 29 we read

ERV
29 “Right after the trouble of those days, this will happen:

‘The sun will become dark,
and the moon will not give light.
The stars will fall from the sky,
and everything in the sky will be changed.’[c]

30 “Then there will be something in the sky that shows the Son of Man is coming. All the people of the world will cry. Everyone will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky. He will come with power and great glory. 31 He will use a loud trumpet to send his angels all around the earth. They will gather his chosen people from every part of the earth.

32 “The fig tree teaches us a lesson: When its branches become green and soft, and new leaves begin to grow, then you know that summer is very near. 33 In the same way, when you see all these things happening, you will know that the time[d] is very near, already present. 34 I assure you that all these things will happen while some of the people of this time are still living. 35 The whole world, earth and sky, will be destroyed, but my words will last forever.
​

In other Bibles verse 34 reads as:

GNT
"Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died."
KJV
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
NOG
“I can guarantee this truth: This generation will not disappear until all these things take place."
NIRV
"What I’m about to tell you is true. The people living now will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
MSG
. . .Don’t take this lightly. I’m not just saying this for some future generation, but for all of you. This age continues until all these things take place. Sky and earth will wear out; my words won’t wear out."
GNT
"Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died."

​

So what happened? Nothing happened, that's what happened.

The sun never became dark.
The moon still gives light.
The stars are still in the sky,
Everything in the sky has not changed.
And everyone did not see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky.​

​

Question: How could Jesus (god) have been so terribly wrong?



*source

.

Excuse me, yes during solar eclipses the sun does become dark, and the moon only gives light from one side; as far as stars go, are you sure it is a star and not a planet? I have not lived my life trying to see if anything changed in the sky above my head, but have seen change. Who is "everyone" and what does sky mean to "everyone"? ?

 

[shmogie]

He wasn't wrong.....and he is not God. (Matthew 24:36) Those renderings show that human translators didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
The first rendering is a pathetic translation of the original.

According to Strongs, the word "generation" used in that verse "genea" can mean......

1. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character"

But this is hardly acknowledged by many translators, so they render Jesus' words as nonsensical.

Since Jesus was talking about his return in the future, these events described in Matthew 24 would allow his disciples at that time to comprehend the "signs" indicating that Christ was now ruling in heaven. These were the signs of his "presence" (parousia) not of his "manifestation" to judge the world. (These are two separate events)

Jesus would direct a monumental preaching campaign in "all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations" that these were the "last days" before God's Kingdom rule directly intervenes in man's affairs to clean up the rot. (Matthew 24:14; Daniel 2:44) After this witness is given to God's satisfaction, then Jesus will manifest himself to judge the nations....the "end" of this wicked world of mankind will then come.

The ones he was talking to initially were those assigned to rule with him in heaven, (all of the first Christians were of that group) but there was a problem in choosing these ones once the foretold apostasy set in. They became almost lost in the world of "weeds" (counterfeit Christianity) sown by the devil. It would not be until the "time of the end" began that God would again cleanse his worshippers, and choose the remaining ones of that "generation". This fits the second definition mentioned above.

genea as was used in Koine Greek can also mean people with familial ties, past, present, and future ( Thayers Greek lexicon) so the genea He was speaking to have not passed away.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I do not. I do not consider them reliable-- especially considering how many translations and edits the whole schlemiel has gone through!

40 years? That doesn't even make sense! A fertile couple will have several kids by the time they are 20-- thus 20 years is Logical--- assuming the woman lasts that long (the death rate was slightly less than 1 in 2, from childbirth complications, after all)

If I understand correctly, the Bible, for whatever unknown reason, is assigning 40 years as the duration of a generation. When a generation is then mentioned, it is referencing that duration of 40 years as the context.

As you point out, a generation is now understood and recognized as 20 years based the evidence of human developmental timing. I am unclear why the authors chose that time length as the duration of a generation, but they did. It may be internally consistent, but it is not externally consistent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excuse me, yes during solar eclipses the sun does become dark, and the moon only gives light from one side; as far as stars go, are you sure it is a star and not a planet? I have not lived my life trying to see if anything changed in the sky above my head, but have seen change. Who is "everyone" and what does sky mean to "everyone"? ?

During an eclipse, the sun is still shining, but the moon is between the earth and the sun, blocking the light. An eclipse only occurs over a small area or region of the Earth. The sun is still shining everywhere else on the planet where it is daylight and the moon is not eclipsing it.

 

[Skwim]

Excuse me, yes during solar eclipses the sun does become dark,

But hardly all over the Earth. In fact, a total solar eclipse will cover far less than 1% of the Earth's surface, so I fail to see your point here. That Jesus may have predicted a total solar eclipse would occur sometime, somewhere on Earth doesn't mean much.

and the moon only gives light from one side;

So what???

as far as stars go, are you sure it is a star and not a planet?

Am I sure what is a star and not a planet? And what is the relevance?

.

 

[siti]

But I think the superficial glance is more likely because of a cynical view.

Is that right? My experience, in regard to interpreting the Bible, is that accusations of cynicism against me generally come from professed Christians who have spent considerably less time (if any at all) studying the Bible than I have. Anyways, I leave it to you to re-read your Bible (in whichever translations you prefer) with an open mind and see whether my "cynical" suggestions make any more sense after that.

 

[Skwim]

Did Jesus lie?

1 Peter 2:22 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Christ did not sin
or ever tell a lie.

Other than wanting to, why would you believe the writer of 1Peter? Obviously the writer wasn't with Jesus all the time, so Jesus had plenty of opportunity to sin and lie without being discovered. Nope, bald-faced pronouncements like this need more than mere assertion to be believed.

But hey, if they make you feel good . . . . . . . . . . .

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lame

Yes, well the plain truth is usually not nearly as exciting as what people hoped for...

And I have told the plain truth twice now in this thread, without exaggeration and without being insulting. Still, if you feel a strong need to throw around words like "lame," well, who am I to deny you...

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, well the plain truth is usually not nearly as exciting as what people hoped for...

And I have told the plain truth twice now in this thread, without exaggeration and without being insulting. Still, if you feel a strong need to throw around words like "lame," well, who am I to deny you...

No, your trying to tell me what I am thinking, which your wrong about, then explain to me my thought process, which your also wrong about, then trying to swerve me into accepting your wrong idea. It's a weak attempt at manipulation is what it is. Dunno know why you try this routinely as if anyone would fall for such a boring uninspired tactic.

 

[blü 2]

None of the above.

It's a false prophecy because Jesus was the final prophet. So anyone claiming new prophecy is after that, is a false prophet.

And when the claim is made that someone is a prophet, what test tells us whether that claim is correct or not?

 

[Enoch07]

And when the claim is made that someone is a prophet, what test tells us whether that claim is correct or not?

Whether they was born before or after Jesus.

If they was born after Jesus and claim to be a prophet. They are a false prophet. Plain and simple. Jesus was the final prophet

 

[blü 2]

Whether they was born before or after Jesus.

If they was born after Jesus and claim to be a prophet. They are a false prophet. Plain and simple. Jesus was the final prophet

What test tells us that Jesus was a prophet?

(Leaving aside the question whether there was an historical Jesus at all.)

 

[siti]

In the Bible.. 40 years is repeatedly called a generation.. For example, the Israelites wandered in the desert of Sinai for 40 years. I think you have to go with what it meant to the people who wrote these stories.

That's right - and so is this

In archaeology, 20 years is the norm, that being a Nice Round Number, and fairly typical from one generation to the next (replacement) generation.

20 years from one generation to the next - but the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years whilst "that generation" - the adults who were responsible for their faithless griping and complaining attitude - died off. That would indicate that the "generation" referred to in that account would be the "over-twenties" and most of them would indeed have died within that 40 year period. So maybe that is exactly what "Jesus" meant - that the adults who had rejected him would see the destruction of the temple etc. within 40 years from his pronouncement - and of course that really did happen in 70CE - about 30-something years after Jesus was supposed to have said it. And then the sun darkened on the lifetime of that generation...and there was bugger all they could do about any of it any more. So the only question is whether it was really written before it happened - well there is no evidence for that as far as I know. All the available evidence points to his words having been made up after that "generation" had already vanished from the scene.

 

[MJFlores]

Other than wanting to, why would you believe the writer of 1Peter? Obviously the writer wasn't with Jesus all the time, so Jesus had plenty of opportunity to sin and lie without being discovered. Nope, bald-faced pronouncements like this need more than mere assertion to be believed.

But hey, if they make you feel good . . . . . . . . . . .

.

Is that it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, your trying to tell me what I am thinking, which your wrong about, then explain to me my thought process, which your also wrong about, then trying to swerve me into accepting your wrong idea. It's a weak attempt at manipulation is what it is. Dunno know why you try this routinely as if anyone would fall for such a boring uninspired tactic.

Did none of those, so it's hard to understand why you are reacting as if your back is up.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the text in Matthew 24 that even remotely suggests "for fig tree, interpret Israel, for growing leaves, interpret regaining sovereignty." Yet you claimed that to be what it was about, and since it is not in the text, you "read it in." That's eisegesis.

And that is all that I said. If you think I'm wrong, show me how. Explanations and dialogue are always better than simply saying "you're wrong, so there, nyah, nyah." And if you can show me how I'm wrong about the one thing I spoke to, I will certainly reconsider. If you'd rather not, then feel free to express contempt again, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Enoch07]

Did none of those, so it's hard to understand why you are reacting as if your back is up.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the text in Matthew 24 that even remotely suggests "for fig tree, interpret Israel, for growing leaves, interpret regaining sovereignty." Yet you claimed that to be what it was about, and since it is not in the text, you "read it in." That's eisegesis.

And that is all that I said. If you think I'm wrong, show me how. Explanations and dialogue are always better than simply saying "you're wrong, so there, nyah, nyah." And if you can show me how I'm wrong about the one thing I spoke to, I will certainly reconsider. If you'd rather not, then feel free to express contempt again, if it makes you feel better.

There is the manipulation again. This started by you challenging me saying I was wrong. Then proceeded with trying to build a strawman which I called you out on. Now your back to manipulating the conversation trying to get me to prove you wrong. I don't have to prove you wrong. You can believe whatever you want. Just don't try forcing it on me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is the manipulation again. This started by you challenging me saying I was wrong. Then proceeded with trying to build a strawman which I called you out on. Now your back to manipulating the conversation trying to get me to prove you wrong. I don't have to prove you wrong. You can believe whatever you want. Just don't try forcing it on me.

Fine, I accept that you will not try to show that the single thing that I called you on, I was incorrect about. I stand by the arguments I made, you stand by claiming I'm wrong without bothering to present any argument of your own. I am not trying to force anything on you but thinking...and I've discovered a lot of believers are uncomfortable with that.

 

[Enoch07]

Fine, I accept that you will not try to show that the single thing that I called you on, I was incorrect about. I stand by the arguments I made, you stand by claiming I'm wrong without bothering to present any argument of your own. I am not trying to force anything on you but thinking...and I've discovered a lot of believers are uncomfortable with that.

You gave an opinion about why you thought I was wrong. I disagree, and well that's ahould be the end of the story. You should have let it go after that.

I am not trying to force anything on you but thinking..

This is my point. You're trying to force me into your line of thinking vs encouraging free thought. Subtle difference most wouldn't notice, but I see it for what it is. I didn't come to my conclusion because I followed someone else line of thought. I studied and researched and came to my own conclusions. If you agree fine, if not that's fine too. But to accuse people of not thinking and then try forcing people into your own line of thinking is unscrupulous at its best.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Excuse me, yes during solar eclipses the sun does become dark, and the moon only gives light from one side; as far as stars go, are you sure it is a star and not a planet? I have not lived my life trying to see if anything changed in the sky above my head, but have seen change. Who is "everyone" and what does sky mean to "everyone"? ?

The sun was in fact dark 3 hours as Jesus died and considerably longer than an eclipse

When he returns the sun will not need to shine because he will be doing the shining.

 

[whirlingmerc]

genea as was used in Koine Greek can also mean people with familial ties, past, present, and future ( Thayers Greek lexicon) so the genea He was speaking to have not passed away.

He chose the ERV easy to read version... it made simplifying word choices to simplify the reading but as you say generations is more precise and most translations go that route.
There are a variety of views but he picked the ERV not for accuracy as it is not the most accurate but made phrases simple as possible to read possibly at the cost of precision
Not a translation I would put a great deal of exegetical weight in

A first time read or a simple read for someone with trouble reading maybe ok and then move on to something more substantial later if possible