Zobel said:

---

No, I'm saying there wasn't one Judaism in the first century, there were many Judaisms. And that modern Rabbinic Judaism wasn't one of them. It developed out of one of those Judaisms, the Pharisaical tradition, but it is also distinct from it.

---

The development of their faith does not give you some kind of temporal privilege for interpreting their holy works. And pretty much any historian of Judaism would not privilege your interpretation of how Christian claims on the Torah fit within Jewish theology.

If Christianity is a direct continuation of one of the Judaisms of the first century (hint: it is) then they are as much our holy works as rabbinic Judaism's (hint: they are).

I don't know what your second sentence is even talking about. They're welcome to their theology. It's a matter of historical inquiry that Rabbinic Judaism is a reaction to Christianity and didn't exist in the first century.

Zobel said:

---

If Christianity is a direct continuation of one of the Judaisms of the first century (hint: it is) then they are as much our holy works as rabbinic Judaism's (hint: they are).

I don't know what your second sentence is even talking about. They're welcome to their theology. It's a matter of historical inquiry that Rabbinic Judaism is a reaction to Christianity and didn't exist in the first century.

---

Amazing. No, Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism. It was repudiated by Judaism very quickly and developed Hellenistic roots early on. The Church fathers of the first four centuries are not Jews who converted. They are Neoplatonic Romans and Northern Africans. Judaism after Jesus was not just a response to Christianity. It was initially and clearly a response to Rome's rule. Jewish enclaves in the centuries after the final Bar Kokhba revolts tended to be in places like today's Baghdad, not centers of Christian rule. For centuries after their communities were more widespread and developed outside of strict Christian oversight. To be sure, the crimes of Byzantines and Western Europe influenced how they practiced their faith, but it's not all about Christianity.

Do you quite get how what you're saying sounds?

You don't know what you're talking about. That's cool.

I recommend the work of Jacob Neusner to alleviate your ignorance on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-their-Messiahs-Neusner-Frerichs/dp/0521349400

Zobel said:

---

You don't know what you're talking about. That's cool.

I recommend the work of Jacob Neusner to alleviate your ignorance on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-their-Messiahs-Neusner-Frerichs/dp/0521349400

---

My ignorance? Cool. Cool.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Noah is a typology of the rapture. Most everyone was oblivious or thought Noah was crazy. But he wasn't and knew when it was coming.

---

How do you know that people, especially most people, thought he was crazy? Where is this stated in the Bible?

PacifistAg said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Noah is a typology of the rapture. Most everyone was oblivious or thought Noah was crazy. But he wasn't and knew when it was coming.

---

How do you know that people, especially most people, thought he was crazy? Where is this stated in the Bible?

---

I said most were oblivious or thought he was crazy. Which the oblivious part is in Matt 24.

"and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:39 ESV


I agree the later part of my statement is in question and won't dispute you on it. The thought comes from 2 Peter chapter three how end time scoffers and compared to the time of Noah. So doesn't explicitly say people mocked Noah so like I said I won't dispute you if you think no one did. However these verses do draw a connection between the flood and those who mock Jesus coming back.


"knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished."
2 Peter 3:3-6 ESV

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It doesn't say "a" generation it says this generation. It is referring to the people he was talking to. It was a speech emphasizing immediacy not something at minimum 2000 years later

---

""From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Matthew 24:32-34 ESV


THIS generation. Which one? The one that sees the fig tree put forth new leaves. What is that? The nation of Israel returning to the land. So we are in that generation

---

You aren't reading the scripture you quoted. It doesn't say that generation. It says this generation. He is using an example to say when you see the signs I speak of you will know it's near. He then goes on to say that the generation he's speaking to shall not pass.

Funny enough your interpretation, strained as it is. Will be disproved shortly. If minders Israel for "reasons" is somehow a fig tree from an example meant to point to other events contextually and we accept this you are running hour of time. The generation that saw Israel formed in 1948 is getting quite old.

---

Exactly. Which generation? This one! The one who sees the fig tree leaves. If it was the generation he was speaking to he would be wrong as ALL those things didn't come to pass!

And yes. Time is short. I've mentioned in this thread I could be wrong on the fig tree generation interpretation. Absolutely I could be wrong. But if I'm not then there's only about 7-8 years left

---

Yea that's hopelessly out of context. He said this one while speaking to people, he wasn't writing to you he was speaking to them. You are right it did fail. Jesus ran into the same issue as everyone else who predicted the end of the world. In 7-8 years you'll switch to another one that ignores a plain reading

I've looked at this closely, as have countless translators. There is a reason it's time and again translated as it is. Because that's what the word means, especially in context.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-34.htm


https://biblehub.com/greek/1074.htm

Trying to twist this to mean something else varies Jesus statement from deceptive to meaningless

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It doesn't say "a" generation it says this generation. It is referring to the people he was talking to. It was a speech emphasizing immediacy not something at minimum 2000 years later

---

""From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Matthew 24:32-34 ESV


THIS generation. Which one? The one that sees the fig tree put forth new leaves. What is that? The nation of Israel returning to the land. So we are in that generation

---

You aren't reading the scripture you quoted. It doesn't say that generation. It says this generation. He is using an example to say when you see the signs I speak of you will know it's near. He then goes on to say that the generation he's speaking to shall not pass.

Funny enough your interpretation, strained as it is. Will be disproved shortly. If minders Israel for "reasons" is somehow a fig tree from an example meant to point to other events contextually and we accept this you are running hour of time. The generation that saw Israel formed in 1948 is getting quite old.

---

Exactly. Which generation? This one! The one who sees the fig tree leaves. If it was the generation he was speaking to he would be wrong as ALL those things didn't come to pass!

And yes. Time is short. I've mentioned in this thread I could be wrong on the fig tree generation interpretation. Absolutely I could be wrong. But if I'm not then there's only about 7-8 years left

---

Yea that's hopelessly out of context. He said this one while speaking to people, he wasn't writing to you he was speaking to them. You are right it did fail. Jesus ran into the same issue as everyone else who predicted the end of the world. In 7-8 years you'll switch to another one that ignores a plain reading

---

The context is within the end of the Age. This disciples specifically ask Jesus when He is coming and when the end of the Age will come. Jesus answers them. So His answer is within the time of the end of the Age. Not their current time period. That is the context. He's not Ignoring their question and answering what will happen in the next several years. He's answering their question about timing of His coming and end of Age. Which by the way they know His coming will be at the end of the Age.

"As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?""
Matthew 24:3 ESV

Exactly. And if your interpretation is correct he gave them almost no information as to when that will happen. If you take on a straightforward reading these things happen in the very near future. And he says this generation, not that generation.

The is also consistent with Matthew 16 which says even more explicitly some who are standing here shall not taste death until he comes into his kingdoms rewarding each according to their deeds and Matthew 26 where he tells the high priest he will see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven and sitting at gods right hand.

Not to mention the immediacy of Jesus return throughout the whole New Testament.

And all this is predicted on Jesus choosing not to speak clearly. Doesn't make much sense.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I've looked at this closely, as have countless translators. There is a reason it's time and again translated as it is. Because that's what the word means, especially in context.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-34.htm


https://biblehub.com/greek/1074.htm

Trying to twist this to mean something else varies Jesus statement from deceptive to meaningless

---

To me, it all hinges on what Jesus meant by the term "generation". From my reading, a lot of scholars do not think Jesus meant the generation of people He was talking to.

And your last sentence reveals your bias. And I am biased also.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Exactly. And if your interpretation is correct he gave them almost no information as to when that will happen. If you take on a straightforward reading these things happen in the very near future. And he says this generation, not that generation.

The is also consistent with Matthew 16 which says even more explicitly some who are standing here shall not taste death until he comes into his kingdoms rewarding each according to their deeds and Matthew 26 where he tells the high priest he will see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven and sitting at gods right hand.

Not to mention the immediacy of Jesus return throughout the whole New Testament.

And all this is predicted on Jesus choosing not to speak clearly. Doesn't make much sense.

---

And did they not see Jesus resurrected and then ascend to Heaven? A lot of people read those same verses and interpret them totally different than you do, would you agree?

And I know Jesus lives because I have a personal relationship with Him. He is as real as any person I have ever met.

We are all biased. But I don't think it's a lot of scholars. Unless you have some evidence otherwise. Most Christians I've seen don't even try the generation argument but rather argue for a different meaning of what is being fortold. That word is widely used in the Bible and other ancient writings and carries meanings very consistent with how we use the English word.

I've yet to see an argument that strikes me as one a person would make if not for the unpleasant implication of the straightforward translation.

Aggrad08 said:

---

We are all biased. But I don't think it's a lot of scholars. Unless you have some evidence otherwise. Most Christians I've seen don't even try the generation argument but rather argue for a different meaning of what is being fortold. That word is widely used in the Bible and other ancient writings and carries meanings very consistent with how we use the English word.

I've yet to see an argument that strikes me as one a person would make if not for the unpleasant implication of the straightforward translation.

---

So you are saying all the hundreds of thousands of Christian theologians for the last two thousand years believe your interpretation of those verses which means Christ is not returning?

Why are they still Christians?

Makes no sense.

And if you are correct, then I am a fool as I have wasted a lot of money and time on a myth. And given up things.

Why would people give up everything, even their life, for a myth?

I choose to believe.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Exactly. And if your interpretation is correct he gave them almost no information as to when that will happen. If you take on a straightforward reading these things happen in the very near future. And he says this generation, not that generation.

The is also consistent with Matthew 16 which says even more explicitly some who are standing here shall not taste death until he comes into his kingdoms rewarding each according to their deeds and Matthew 26 where he tells the high priest he will see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven and sitting at gods right hand.

Not to mention the immediacy of Jesus return throughout the whole New Testament.

And all this is predicted on Jesus choosing not to speak clearly. Doesn't make much sense.

---

They ask when the end of the Age is. He answered. It's simple. You can get hung up on "this" And "that" but since it hasn't been fulfilled you are left with only two options.

1. Jesus wasn't talking about that current generation.

Or

2. Jesus was wrong.

Here are a few

https://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_2434_commentary

And more. In fact, there are pages of them on Google.

https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Matthew_24.34.php

And you are entitled to your interpretation. I am only objecting to you saying most scholars agree with you. Maybe atheist scholars? I will give you that.

And the orthodox chime in

http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/parousia-and-matthew-24-32-35.70959/

As I said I think most try and interpret away from a second coming meaning, rather than deny the words this generation mean what they typically do.

With regard to sacrificing for a myth. Well that's just the reality of human history unless you believe each and every religion is true. The only question is whether you believe you and yours are special.

dermdoc said:

---

And the orthodox chime in

http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/parousia-and-matthew-24-32-35.70959/

---

Did you read your link? If you did then it's exactly consistent with what I said and how Christians typically try to avoid the perils of this verse

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And the orthodox chime in

http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/parousia-and-matthew-24-32-35.70959/

---

Did you read your link? If you did then it's exactly consistent with what I said and how Christians typically try to avoid the perils of this verse

---

Reread it.

1. He gets asked when is the end.
2. He answers when the fig tree brings forth new leaves. YOU know summer is near.

Who is the YOU? The One who SEES the fig tree bring forth leaves.
3. THIS generation. Which one? The one He is talking ABOUT! He was just talking TO a group of people who SEE something take place.

That's the this. NOT his physical audience.

This is like elementary stuff.

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

Aggrad08 said:

---

As I said I think most try and interpret away from a second coming meaning, rather than deny the words this generation mean what they typically do.

With regard to sacrificing for a myth. Well that's just the reality of human history unless you believe each and every religion is true. The only question is whether you believe you and yours are special.

---

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I thought you were saying that most scholars think that Jesus erred and since he did return in those listeners lifetime(He actually did)that His return is a myth.

I do not think there is a controversy over the actual translation of the words "this generation". Obviously that is not the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is not the translation of the actual word. It is what did Jesus mean by His words.

If most scholars interpreted what Jesus meant like you do, they would not be Christians, correct?

And yes, I think Christianity is the only true belief. And that it is a relationship, not a religion.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

Disagree. The only struggles I know of is with non believers asking Christians about this. I know of few Christians that question their faith over non believers interpretations of the Bible.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

This is basic basic English.

The YOU is the subject. The SEE is the verb. See what? The fig tree bring forth leaves. The YOU that SEEs the fig tree can't possibly be the people he is physically talking to because they didn't see that take place.

So like I said early. Jesus is talking to a future generation Or He was wrong. Take your pick. And the way English works backs me up. You are taking a single word. Out of context and out of the rest of the paragraph to defend your point.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

This is basic basic English.

The YOU is the subject. The SEE is the verb. See what? The fig tree bring forth leaves. The YOU that SEEs the fig tree can't possibly be the people he is physically talking to because they didn't see that take place.

So like I said early. Jesus is talking to a future generation Or He was wrong. Take your pick. And the way English works backs me up. You are taking a single word. Out of context and out of the rest of the paragraph to defend your point.

---

Yep.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And the orthodox chime in

http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/parousia-and-matthew-24-32-35.70959/

---

Did you read your link? If you did then it's exactly consistent with what I said and how Christians typically try to avoid the perils of this verse

---

Well then I misinterpreted what you said. It seemed you inferred that most Christian theologians agreed with your interpretation of what Jesus meant.

And yes, I read the link. And what perils? Despite what you think, this does not prove that Christ is not returning. Scoffers have been around forever and Christianity is still here. And since it is true, it will always be here.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

Disagree. The only struggles I know of is with non believers asking Christians about this. I know of few Christians that question their faith over non believers interpretations of the Bible.

---

Then meet more people. Even CS Lewis struggled with this verse.

Whatever you believe about it, as you said, it's difficult to be a Christian and take the words at face value. My point was the attempt to twist the meaning of generation is the uncommon tactic and not well supported. The tactic of changing the interpretation away from the second coming is more common.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

This is basic basic English.

The YOU is the subject. The SEE is the verb. See what? The fig tree bring forth leaves. The YOU that SEEs the fig tree can't possibly be the people he is physically talking to because they didn't see that take place.

So like I said early. Jesus is talking to a future generation Or He was wrong. Take your pick. And the way English works backs me up. You are taking a single word. Out of context and out of the rest of the paragraph to defend your point.

---

I agree it's either or. You are just wrong about which one. And neither a straightforward English or Greek reading help you. In fact you would never have framed the sentence the way it is if you meant to say what he did. But you would frame it exactly as such if you meant to say -well what it says.

The basic premise that the YOU can't be the people he's taking to is false. That's why you are forced to twist things around and turn YOU into THEM.
Because Jesus did think they would see these things.

You are basically proving my point. Without you post hoc reasoning you have nothing to stand on linguistically

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

Disagree. The only struggles I know of is with non believers asking Christians about this. I know of few Christians that question their faith over non believers interpretations of the Bible.

---

Then meet more people. Even CS Lewis struggled with this verse.

Whatever you believe about it, as you said, it's difficult to be a Christian and take the words at face value. My point was the attempt to twist the meaning of generation is the uncommon tactic and not well supported. The tactic of changing the interpretation away from the second coming is more common.

---

You are twisting what I said, I said that if you agreed with YOUR interpretation, YOUR face value, YOUR bias, then it would be impossible to be a Christian.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Now try to realize how ironically it makes much more sense to use YOU for the people you are speaking to. And it's consistent if he thought they would see these things. Perfectly consistent.

He's not writing for future generations 2000 years later he's speaking to people standing there. You means you when speaking to someone's face. It doesn't mean your descendent. He could have said that if he meant it.

Again this is also consistent with other verses making similar claims. It's not some simple workaround. Christians have struggled with this one a long time.

---

This is basic basic English.

The YOU is the subject. The SEE is the verb. See what? The fig tree bring forth leaves. The YOU that SEEs the fig tree can't possibly be the people he is physically talking to because they didn't see that take place.

So like I said early. Jesus is talking to a future generation Or He was wrong. Take your pick. And the way English works backs me up. You are taking a single word. Out of context and out of the rest of the paragraph to defend your point.

---

I agree it's either or. You are just wrong about which one. And neither a straightforward English or Greek reading help you. In fact you would never have framed the sentence the way it is if you meant to say what he did. But you would frame it exactly as such if you meant to say -well what it says.

The basic premise that the YOU can't be the people he's taking to is false. That's why you are forced to twist things around and turn YOU into THEM.
Because Jesus did think they would see these things.

You are basically proving my point. Without you post hoc reasoning you have nothing to stand on linguistically

---

Reread it again. It's very clear.

""From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near."
Matthew 24:32 ESV

This is a lesson. Meaning it applies always. It's like saying when Christmas decorations show up on display in stores you know Christmas is near. Who is the you? Anyone who sees Christmas decorations for sale in the store. Why? Because it's a timeless truth which applies to ANYONE who sees it take place. They didn't see it take place but that doesn't mean that truth is invalidated.

So who does see the fig tree bring forth leaves? IMO it's The generation who sees Israel's rebirth as a nation.

Interesting take.

https://medium.com/koinonia/the-most-embarrassing-verse-in-the-bible-actually-aids-its-reliability-8bbf75ebfeb6

Pretty poor take IMO. The writers makes it seem like early Christians we're clueless. It's very clear the disciples understood his coming back meant the end of the Age and NOT the end of the world. Modern days views of early day Christians and their own theology is flawed because they don't read the Bible for themselves. They rely on YouTube videos or commentaries or whatever else. People are redefining generation because they don't understand Jesus is speaking about a lesson. He immediately follows this generation with THAT generation. It's very clear who Jesus is talking to and about. Whoever sees the fig tree bring forth leaves. That's it. We don't need to redefine terms. Like I said above. It's like saying you know when you see flowers bloom it's springtime. Who am I talking to? Everyone who sees flowers bloom. But in this specific case only one generation will see the fig tree bring forth leaves. Which generation? This generation that sees it. In that generation all will be fulfilled.

Anyone who is trying to over complicate this very simple lesson is doing so to twist and make it seem like Jesus was wrong.

Also Peter knew what was up.

2peter 3. He's very clear and gives both a warning and a clue.

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
2 Peter 3:8-9 ESV

Peter says this is a FACT. A 1000 years is a day and a day is a 1000 years to the lord. Very very important to understand all of these.

Also the fig tree is used because it's thing back into the harvest model which is laid in Leviticus to perfectly showcase the END from the BEGINNING. Nothing is random. It's been planned out all to a T before the foundations of the world were made. Modern day Christians have been dumbed down and turn to other sources than the Bible for truth.