quote:

---

35"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come backwhether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'"

You can finish the chapter for context and his argument doesn't lose anything. It's just a natural break.

---

The Lesson of the Fig Tree.*
32
"Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near.
33
In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates.
34
Amen, I say to you, this generation* will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
35
o Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

36
p "But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,* but the Father alone.

How does Jesus know that all will come to see the end before they die, if no one but God the Father knows when it will happen?

quote:

---

Sounds like he doesn't know the specifics, he just knows it'll be before the generation dies off.

Isn't that the only way for that all to be true?

---

No, not at all. Jesus specifically, explicitly says that no one except for the father knows of the time.

quote:

---

Yeah exactly. He doesn't know the specific time (day and hour), he just knows it'll be between then and when the generation dies off.

That's consistent with both statements, correct? Is there any other situation that can be?

---

Actually there is, and it has to do with both the Temple of Jerusalem, the parousia, writing style of the early church, and a technique called bracketing.

I read an excellent book by David Currie about this exact topic, I think it was called "what Jesus really said about the end of the world" or something to that extent

quote:

---

No, not at all. Jesus specifically, explicitly says that no one except for the father knows of the time.

---

He says the exact hour. He also every bit as explicitly says it will happen this generation. This is easily reconciled by jesus knowing vaguely a timeframe and god knowing the exact second. Either way it's a failed prophecy, clear as day.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, not at all. Jesus specifically, explicitly says that no one except for the father knows of the time.

---

He says the exact hour. He also every bit as explicitly says it will happen this generation. This is easily reconciled by jesus knowing vaguely a timeframe and god knowing the exact second. Either way it's a failed prophecy, clear as day.

---

That's wrong, it's not a failed prophecy, all apologies to Mr Russel, Mr Schweitzer and aggrad alike. It's a correct two fold prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and Christs second coming. Correct may not be the right word to use since the second hasn't occurred yet, but he's 1 for 1 so far with one still pending.

quote:

---

Can you be more clear? Are you asserting that those two statements are referring to different things?

---

In the Olivet discourse Christ is referring both to the fall of Jerusalem and the ensuing death of the Pharisees with the major event being the fall of the temple in 70; and his second coming.

quote:

---

So then he's half right, but wrong about the timing of the second coming?

---

Okay, it's going to get a bit indepth but if I half ass this, it's going to do us a disservice.

Go to Matthew 23:36, and 24:34, what do you notice?

quote:

---

Done. I don't notice anything from the two verses without reading context.

---

Okay. Go back and look and see how they both reference nearly identically "all these things will happen to this generation" this is an old literary technique called bracketing used several times in the Bible. It tells the reader that the subject covered between the two brackets is the same.

So essentially 23:36 -24:34 was talking about the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, and after that is a different subject.

Focusing on 23;34-24:36 subject matter, another literary device is used called a chiasm. It was popular with orally transmitted stories and rather than the modern ABC-climax form, it took an ABC-Climax-CBA format, where the verses before and after the climax were related, not a staircase, but an arc.

This generation (23:36)
B Gathering rejected (23:37)
C See the Son of Man (23:38-39)
D Going away (24:1a)
E Thrown down (24:1b-2)
F Knowledge sought (24:3a)
G Sign of coming (24:3b)
H False messiahs (24:4-5)
I Time of suffering protracted (24:6-8)
J Tribulation (24:9)
K Do not fall away (24:10-11)
L Wickedness (24:12)
M The end (24:13)
CLIMAX: Preach the gospel of the kingdom (24:14 )
M' The end (24:14b)
L' Sacrilege (24:15)
K' Flee! (24:16-20)
J' Tribulation (24:21)
I' Time of suffering shortened (24:22)
H' False messiahs (24:23-26)
G' Lightning sign (24:27)
F' Knowledge denied (24:28)
E' Falling (24:29)
D' Appearing (24:30a)
C' See the Son of Man (24:30b)
B' Gathering successful (24:31)
A' This generation (24:32-34)

Notice how both sides of the climax are related, and how the chiasm ends at the same place as the bracket referencing "this generation"

quote:

---

There's clearly symmetry but I think the magnitude of the symmetry is overstated. Several of the labels don't seem to be the best way to describe the message, whoever made it was clearly trying to force symmetry. It's just an annoyance though, the overall structure is definitely there. Pretty cool, never knew that. So what's the point?

---

The book goes into detail about each and every A,B,C and the symmetry really stands out, but I don't wanna take too long.

There's a lot more really cool stuff, but essentially the point is that Jesus is referring to two different during his Olivet Dissertation. The first, which he knows the date of, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70; contained in 23:35-24:34, and the prophecy of his second coming, which only God knows.

quote:

---

You didn't really lead me there with an argument though, I still don't know why you think that. You showed the bracketing and the symmetry, but I don't know why the bracketing only refers to part of the passage it contains, nor how the symmetry relates to either. You're saying it's because of time/complexity, but there's no online presentation of this argument?

---

I barely showed you a smidgen on a percent of an argument. I'm merely trying to prove to you that there are two separate subjects being discussed, and how you can tell by literary context clues where the subjects start and end.

Unfortunately the entire argument is about a 250 page book.

quote:

---

The symmetry really is cool though, is that used often?

---

Yes, off the top of my head, "law of the prophets" in Matthew 5:17-7:12, and "Peter" as the first and last disciple mentioned in Mark, signaling the book is through Peter's eye witness account

quote:

---

What's it called? I probably wouldn't understand it anyways really. I think all this translation crap and stuff is tedious and difficult to make precise.

Half-joking/half-not: That had better be a pretty clear argument for it to beat out the obvious one; that he was wrong. By that I mean it shouldn't require any assumptions or arbitrary choices.

---

It's amazingly clear. It pulls from the Old Testament regarding Zechariah's prophesy of the destruction of the temple with Jesus using the same words, and the account of the vision of God leaving the temple, with Jesus leaving the temple in Matthew 24, and then Zechariah's sheep foresaking him; and his leaving for 30 pieces of silver and martyrdom; which is reflected in Christs crucifixion.

Really amazing. Christ was spot on about the destruction of the temple, and it's really easy to see.

The book is "what didnchrist really say about the end of the world" and it's written by a former fundamental Protestant turned Catholic scholar.

quote:

---

If you want to get sciencey, here are some questions for you:

1. Light is the only substance in the universe which is both matter and energy. Why would a Bronze Age nomads like Moses choose light, not rock or water or fire, as the building block of all creation?

2. The 12 stones for the foundation of the New Jerusalem in Reveltation 21 are jasper (quartz), sapphire, chalcedony (agate), emerald, sardonyx (red onyx), sardius (carnelian), chrysolyte (peridot), beryl (aquamarine), topaz, chrysoprase (turquoise), jacinth (red zircon), & amethyst. It has no diamonds, rubies or garnets. The first list is anisotropic gems, which shine like crazy in the presences of light. The second list are isotropic gems which turn black in cross polarized light. The distinction of isotropic vs anisotropic gems was recently discovered by scientists in the last century. How did John the Apostle know this 2000 years ago?

Provide sufficient answers to those (that is, more than "it was a lucky guess" ) and I will entertain your talking points about the Creation timeline.

---

The 6th foundation was ruby. Isotropic. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21

quote:

---

The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.

---

Why didn't you add in the pearl that made the gates? Also Isotropic.

Here's my partially researched take.

A large majority of minerals are anisotropic. So it's not hard to see that it could be a mere coincidence. Also those minerals could have been more influential to people in that society. Diamonds weren't discovered until the 4th century BC in India. Perhaps that gem's demand hadn't developed in that area compared to the others. Garnets are pretty dark and were quite common in the area at that time. Probably to the point they were considered average.

I wasn't done. My IPad has been acting up when I switch from tab to tab. So copy/pasting websites takes a few edits.

I think he got the concept from this YouTube vid.. I could be wrong.

quote:

---

Just a tangential question, what the hell is cross-polarized light? That man in the video seemed to indicate that it was passed through two filters at a 90 degree angle, but that would result in the blockage of all the light. I'm not sure it's important to the actual argument but I have no idea what that is. Google wasn't helpful either, I didn't see anything like what he was talking about.

---

Here is an example..maybe?

I am definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to this.

Aggrad08,

You didn't quote an initial scripture, so I didn't know you wanted to use Matthew 24 as your "proof of failed prophecy". Luke 9 or Matthew 16 would have made for a little better commentary, so I offered them (and as mentioned, those tend to be some of the more recurring choices for those attempting to counter Christian apologetics).

Truth be told though, I am glad you quoted Matthew 24. Matthew 24:15 destroys your claims that this is a failed prophesy.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (Matthew 24:15)

The "abomination of desolation" refers to anti-Christ declaring to be God as he stands at the Temple Mount. The Third Temple has not been rebuilt in Jerusalem, and this is essential to the culmination of this prophecy.