Who are "this generation"? Matthew 24:34

[Xchristian]

I knew you would resort to that weak argument,
Look dear
,
jesus was not talking about the 'temole' as a unit out of akl jerusalem to be destroyed please note that if he disn't predict total destruction as you thought he will have yet another mistake, he thought only the inner sanctum would be destroyed, and thr result is he ended up blowing up everything but the wailing wall

Second:
jesus hasn't actually naned thr destroyed part so that you can start apologising for him, mark thr GMark words carefully "these buildingS" "stone upon another" "wonder works" the whole lot ....
You are bending it to help jesus but you went and broke it while bending it too much

I wonder where you got this bit about the wall being Herodean from, the apologetics quote some 'historians' but i know better than believing right wing evangelists who have taken up history for their A levels, or historians who believe in christ myth so they give their signature stamp to apologists to help raising funds for the churches by lying about history

In the end of the day i am saying your argument failed because you took it so far out of context you actually ended up definging a perimeter to destroy and while doung that you tried to save the rest of palestine, other than the inner temple but pity it's not true.

Then you went accusing me, where you should have accused the authors of thr fourth gospel, because the way it is now ia we have two temples to destroy, one for his body and another for real, i bet not even would buy your reaaoning

 

[Xchristian]

I had received this:

dpcalder has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Who are "this generation"? Matthew 24:34 - in the Scriptural Debates forum of Religious Education Forum.

This thread is located at:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-who-generation-matthew-24-34-a-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
This generation refers to the generation to which Jesus was speaking. The destruction of the Temple did indeed occur in that lifetime thus confirming that prophecy.
***************

In answer I say:

dpcalder: are you aware that this so called 'prophecy' was written after it actually occurred? i.e. the gospel writer(s) actually wrote it in reflection, in retrospect!

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't matter if it was written after or before the temple fell, because the meaning is the same. I partially agree with what Awoon said, although I don't think anybody was trying to rip anybody off.

Peter refers to 'This wicked generation' in Acts II. Jesus refers to 'This generation' and says "It shall not pass away before all these things happen."

When Jesus says this generation 'Shall not pass away' it sounds cryptic, because it is cryptic. Its not clear or obvious, so I completely disagree with those who are say its obvious. I am reminded of something that someone recently said to me: "You don't know what you're talking about." That much is true. I don't know what I'm talking about. My opinion is that it means Jesus ministry did not represent the end of temple worship or of Moses path. Recall that even after Jesus death and resurrection his disciples and apostles still made sacrifices at the temple, which is recorded in Acts. Recall that Christians and Jews co-existed for two centuries, using the same synagogues. The Christians had no problem with Jews who weren't Christians or with them not being Christians. It is probably related to that.

 

[Xchristian]

It doesn't matter if it was written after or before the temple fell, because the meaning is the same

beg to differ mate, ...
It's certainly written AFTER the event, and this has only one meaning.
It means that an event happened, and for theo. reasons, the author opted to blow up his saviour's character by making him have a say in events that happened well after him.

Put it this way, it like saying:

My grand grand dad made a prophecy that Obama would be re-elected. ...
oh I love you grandpa.

or that I make a prophecy that you will answer my post, not now, AFTER you have answered!

Peter refers to 'This wicked generation' in Acts II.

nice search work. but irrelevant.

 

[The Immortal]

In Mathew 24, the disciples ask Jesus what the signs of his coming and the end of the world will be. Jesus describes them and says this generation, i.e. the generation that sees those signs, will not pass before he returns. So, when we have the wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, which are just the start, then persecution, false prophets, iniquity abounding, the gospel preached to all the world, the great tribulation, the sun and moon darkened, the stars falling, etc. THIS generation that sees all these things will not pass before he returns.

Not so fast with the assumption my friend. The disciples asked a much different question which had nothing to do with the world ending. Linguistics can be so problematic when words like the word 'world' get used instead of 'age'.

The scriptures are pretty clear in their references to the 'last days', the end of the age, the coming of the kingdom, etc. that they referred to the generation of the Jewish Messiah which history tells us was some 2000 years ago.

 

[Brickjectivity]

beg to differ mate, ...
It's certainly written AFTER the event, and this has only one meaning.

X, I appreciate it but you're changing the subject. The question is what generation Jesus is referring to. That's what the whole thread is about. It doesn't matter whether the book was written before or after the temple fell, because its not about that. We're not debating whether there's a genuine prophecy going on or not. Prophecy can mean all kinds of things other than predicting the future. You can have an ex-post facto prophecy written as it if were about the future, because the tense of the verbs and way they wrote back then is very different from now. Its like when we have a movie about William Wilberforce, and yeah he's already been around. It doesn't mean we're predicting the future or pretending to. Its a historical film, and everybody knows it. We're not trying to fool people. Same same. You can't just assume that the thing was written to fool people. Sometimes people just go into it half-cocked reading the Bible with no training, and so they think everything is a prediction when not everything is. Ok, I understand that then some of them turn around and act like they know what they're doing and start telling everybody else, and that's not cool.

 

[Xchristian]

X, I appreciate it but you're changing the subject. The question is what generation Jesus is referring to. That's what the whole thread is about. It doesn't matter whether the book was written before or after the temple fell, because its not about that.

North Carolina, breathing [probably] the same air as the Lord Ehrman, and still believe in 'prophecies'! ...
We have children in East London who know better than that!

Anyway ...

I wasn't changing the subject Brickjectivity, I was merely returning it to its true meaning, 'the GENERATION' which is a problem none of the jesus believers can tackle so far from what I can see.

What's wrong in saying, jesus was deluded or he thought it wouldn't get that far?

 

[Brickjectivity]

X, please don't misunderstand me purposely or otherwise.

Fine you are X christian. I care about what Jesus meant by 'This generation', because it pertains to relations between Christians and Jews in early times, but it also has broader implications for modern times for everyone. It doesn't matter (for our topic) if it was a prediction or if it was written after the temple's destruction, because we're just discussing what is meant by 'This generation'. I posted in the thread because it was a topic that I wanted to talk about. To me it seems you want to make the thread be about whether Jesus is real. I'm not a scholar or preacher, and I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me if somebody wrote the passage after the temple fell. It would still mean the same thing.

Bart Erhmen is a local professor. I've not met him, but I skimmed his book in the bargain bin: "Misquoting Jesus". He doesn't say everything he thinks in the book. He doesn't always make a logical case (and he knows it). He pulls a lot of punches, too. He's not interested in completely destroying Christianity like you seem to be. He's a divinity professor, and he gets paid to teach people about the Bible. Yes we breathe the same air, and did you know that when he farts it eventually reaches all of our lungs including people in China? Perhaps somebody needs to talk to him about that.

 

[Xchristian]

X, please don't misunderstand me purposely or otherwise.

Fine you are X christian. I care about what Jesus meant by 'This generation', because it pertains to relations between Christians and Jews in early times, but it also has broader implications for modern times for everyone. It doesn't matter (for our topic) if it was a prediction or if it was written after the temple's destruction, because we're just discussing what is meant by 'This generation'.

Brickjectivity; please read the book, it doesn't say what you want it to say.
jesus spoke of the return of the 'son of man' in clouds and very good stuff in that context.

[Mt 24:29][ "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.]
[Mt 24:30][ Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.]
[Mt 24:31][ And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.]
[Mt 24:32][ "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.]
[Mt 24:33][ So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.]
[Mt 24:34][ Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.]

so that generation will have seen people flying and----- and stuff like that.

Those kinds of miracles haven't happened on this side of the Atlantic.
Perhaps only in dreams of extreme evangelists and folk like that.

 

[Xchristian]

by the way, no I am not after destroying xtianity, no point killing a dead and buried myth.
Ask your next door neighbour professor Robert M Price, he's got 2 PhD's top class guy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see what you mean. Well, you could be right but I'm assuming that he is using all of that weird language less literally. Gathering people from 'The four winds' is very strange language. He says the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven -- also not standard language. Probably he is talking about the unity of his followers, because elsewhere he directly explains that people will know his followers by their genuine love for each other. They come from 'The four winds', probably meaning different walks of life. He chose apostles with very diverse backgrounds, most of whom would have been considered uneducated and sinister in their society. I'd consider them to represent the four winds, and I'd consider all of the bizarre language to be describing people rather than tectonic events or weather. The 'Flying' is probably not about physically flying about.

 

[Xchristian]

hello

you know I would have liked that to be the case. But not really.
there are no 'four walks of life'. to be very honest. this is ... you name it, I won't.
ok I will assume that there are four walks of life ...
Anthropologists say the Nazareth (if there ever was a place like that at that particular time) would not have but poor hand to mouth peasants, the most educated of them would be Peter and John, and those are as acts said:

[Acts 4:13][ Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.]

these two are assumed to be the highest educated of the whole lot! ..

the second thing is: there's nothing to suggest that the followers of jesus at that time remained 'united', well, take Judas' example for instance.

The rest (again if there ever was '12') are all silent cast, they just pass in front of the camera, and hence the [Acts of the apostle(S) is restricted to the Acts of Paul and Peter and John] {Paul whom?}
Who is St Matthew? .. the tax collector .. full stop ... nothing else.
Who is St Nathaniel? .. nobody
Who is St Judas, not the Iscariot? .. anybody's guess.
Who is St Theudas? perhaps an Irish priest?

I challenge any believer to write just five lines about half of the dozen (I know about Peter and Judas, so choose any others)

How can you say they are from different 'walks of life'? based on what scriptures? .. and why four?
and how on earth did you believe this 'four winds' thing? haven't you ever studied Geography?
It's alright for the writers of the gospels because they didn't know better, but we do!

Finally, if you can't believe in this 'flying' thing, where's is jesus now? ... I thought he flew past the stratosphere!

 

[Brickjectivity]

hello

you know I would have liked that to be the case. But not really.
there are no 'four walks of life'. to be very honest. this is ... you name it, I won't.
ok I will assume that there are four walks of life ...
Anthropologists say the Nazareth (if there ever was a place like that at that particular time) would not have but poor hand to mouth peasants, the most educated of them would be Peter and John, and those are as acts said:

Sorry this response is late, but I've been out of it. How can I make this post short? The best way is to point out first that Jayhawker Soul is correct in saying we don't know what we are talking about. "So, what is the point in continuing?" you may wonder. Well, we haven't got any choice but to continue as best we can.

To begin with, X, your education as a Christian was severely lacking if my own experience is any indication. Going by things you are saying, you were fed the same rough porridge as me which somebody was calling the gospel. You would be better off starting from scratch than to rely upon the things you were taught. It is frustrating but there's no shame in it.

Absolutely every passage you read in our 'NT' is absolutely always without any exceptions a reference to Torah or some part of the Tanach or both. Take it or leave it. By this principle a reference to the 'Four Winds' is a clear allusion to the 4 sides of the Tabernacle about which the Israelis used to camp. There were 12 tribes, the number representing the concept of 'Many'. Three of each tribe camped in one of the 4 directions. Each tribe was very distinct. They were not the same. Additionally Abraham was promised he'd be the father of more nations than he could count -- not four and not twelve. That is in a nutshell why when Jesus says his followers are coming from the 4 winds, he's not talking about an absolute number like 4 but a myriad.

 

[Brickjectivity]

the second thing is: there's nothing to suggest that the followers of jesus at that time remained 'united', well, take Judas' example for instance.

Quite so. In fact is is just the opposite, and Jesus himself predicted his followers would be divided at first. He prayed that all of his followers would become united. There are several places where he predicted it, but one of my favorites is his reference to Zechariah 13:7 "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be shattered." 'Two thirds' fall away. I'm not going into it, but this is basically not saying that 1/3 are 'Right' and 2/3 'Wrong'. It means they are all bickering and wandering all over the place.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Finally, if you can't believe in this 'flying' thing, where's is jesus now? ... I thought he flew past the stratosphere!

If you want to have in depth conversations you should get more serious, but a sense of humor is not unappreciated. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Rise]

I
I wonder where you got this bit about the wall being Herodean from

Where did I say the wall was herodean?
Some say it might even have been Justinian, which is even worse for your position.

Either way, all the temple buildings are gone, not one stone left upon another. So even if the best you can do is to say it might have been a piece of a perimeter wall, it's still not the temple buildings. And it probably isn't even that much.

Then you went accusing me, where you should have accused the authors of thr fourth gospel, because the way it is now ia we have two temples to destroy, one for his body and another for real, i bet not even would buy your reaaoning

As I already explained for you: John 2 and Matthew 24 are seperate incidents, not related to each other. You need to read them more carefully and then you will see they are not referencing each other.

In matthew 23 he says to the Jews that their house will be left desolate to them while at the temple, then in matthew 24 his disciples ask Him about the temple buildings - To which he responds by saying that not one stone will be left upon another.

John 2 is a seperate instance. The equivalent verse in matthew is actually found in Matthew 16:
16 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered them,[a] “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.


The "sign of Jonah" is to be dead and then raised to life after 3 days.

This is what he was referring to in John 2, when the pharisees demand a sign from him, so He challenged them to destroy "this temple" (which John then explicitly tells us was referring to His body) and then He will raise it up again after 3 days.

John 2
18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,[c] and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

 

[Xchristian]

Quite so. In fact is is just the opposite, and Jesus himself predicted his followers would be divided at first. He prayed that all of his followers would become united. There are several places where he predicted it, ... etc

so you are telling me it has to be true, just because he predicted it, right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

so you are telling me it has to be true, just because he predicted it, right?

No, I don't say that. He prayed for it to happen, which is different from a prediction. His 'Disciple' team was a model of diversity. His own twelve disciples were extremely different and had to learn to put up with each other. It was like Debbie Boone & The Rolling Stones on tour. Adding Judas the Siccari (throat slitter) to his team, Jesus practically guaranteed there would be tensions among his roadies. To top it off he showed favoritism to one of the disciples. According to human wisdom Jesus chose all the wrong members for his team and was a terrible leader, but he was demonstrating his gospel through them. He prayed that his followers through the generations would be united through love. It was his greatest wish. Since it was his greatest wish, the thing he prayed for, and since he was without sin it is Biblical logic that his prayer will be answered some day. Its like a prediction but not exactly a prediction.

To recap, he could say "This generation is perverse" because they would not accept his message of peace & love. Notice how he again repeats the theme of the mustard seed: It only takes a tiny bit of faithfulness -- not a mountain of faithfulness contrary to what most people think to move mountains, and so he was teaching they could take all of their damnable sectarian bickering and dispose of it. This was something most refused to accept, so he called them a perverse generation.

 

[Xchristian]

please write five lines only on each disciple of the 12 *you may exclude Peter and Judas* (with proof attached)

 

[Xchristian]

apology to thread owner, because we are now unable to address the 'this generation' issue.
jesus must have made a mistake and to get over it, we are talking of various other things.