Jayman

The text note on Luke 21:32 (parallel to Matt. 24:34) in the NRSV Study Bible (made by the Society of Biblical Literature) says: "This generation, i.e., the generation of the signs."

CX

Which illustrates the problem of theological bias in English versions, lexicons and study bibles. The a priori assumption is that Jesus, because he was the son of God, would not have prophesied something that didn't come to pass. Looking at the Greek text, though, in the NA27 it reads as follows:

AMHN LEGW UMIN hOTI OU MH PARELQH hH GENEA AUTH EWS AN PANTA TAUTA GENHTAI

It is clear from the context and using comparitive linguistics with other passages in GMt that AMt is referring to contemporaries of Jesus. That early Xians believed the parousia was imminent is clear from the Gospels and the early writings of Paul. It is difficult to say whether Jesus actually said this or whether it reflects the beliefs of his followers after his death. But either way the text is clear that the coming of the KoG is imminent.

If the writer had really intend "generation" to mean tribe or race he would have used FULH (tribe as he does just 4 verses earlier in 24:30) or GENOS (the root for the word GENEA that means race or kind) which AMt uses twice elsewhere in the gospel.

It is absolutely clear that the mini-apocalypse GMk 13 which AMt takes over into his gospel is a response to the circumstances at the time of the writing of the gospel somewhere near the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 C.E.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Skeptical

Did you even read the rest of my post? How is this relevant to refuting the fact that if this event occured the people hearing it would undoubtedly have thought Jesus meant _their_ generation and also the fact that Jesus would have known that they would have thought this, i.e. he knowingly deceived them?

Answer: it doesn't relate and since you cannot resolve this difficulty you just choose to conveniently ignore it.

Hans

I'm unable to imagine a sequence of events to account for the text reading as it does.

If we argue that a prophet named Jesus existed, made such a claim, and that claim was recorded, then to go unfullfilled, why wouldn't the early proponents, if undaunted by the false prophecy, just change the text so that it would not read as it does today?

If the text was authored after the fact, i.e., after those who were alive have passed, why include a self refuting text?

Can anyone provide a reasonable explination why this text appears as it does? It just seems silly to try and sell someone on a story when the story refutes itself.

Skeptical

Because it's useful for emotional appeal. As history shows, religious choice is almost always (if not in fact always) made due to an appeal to emotion, not intellect. The conversion of the masses is usually accomplished through a combination of

positive inducement: a happy afterlife

and

negative reinforcement: choose now, the end is near or look forward to eternal torment!

As xians have shown now and in the past, you can always claim that _this_ generation is the generation when these events will come to pass, which gives it the emotional force and urgency. Logic and reason do not play a role, its purely an emotional issue.

ishalon

I guess when they were editing the Bible they didn't realise how important that part was

I should have posted this on a christian board though, not atheist

smugg

You may be interested to know that there are Christians out there who maintain that all the things Jesus spoke of have already happened. They're called preterists.

You may also be inclined to ask me follow up questions. I recommend that you don't: I don't get it either...

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: smugg ]</p>

Berenger Sauniere

Maybe it has been corrupted from its original form? Verily, I say unto you, unless all these things are fullfilled, this generation will not pass.

So basically, you have some asshole priest telling another asshole priest, that a particular 'generation' (the little Jewish chilluns?) will not pass muster unless something is done in a certain order. Or something to that effect.

I would not put a lot of stock into how the phrase has been interpreted through the years. Rest assured, the final editor/redactor didn't have a f*ckin' clue as how it was originally intended.

Boro Nut

I think this is entirely plausible. I once walked into a garage and said 'I would like to buy THIS car' pointing to an E type jag. Unfortunately the christian salesman assumed I meant THAT bag of shite that's on my drive now.

Boro Nut

Slex

Also check this out:


Mark
9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke
9:26
For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Matthew
16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


I think it is beyond dispute that Jesus says that some of the people he speaks to will witness him coming in his kingdom. However, it is controversial whether Jesus means that they will witness his resurrection and ascension to Heaven or his second coming, Judgement day. In my opinion, if he refers to his ascension it would be more proper to say "going" or "going back" in his kingdom instead of "coming". It is true that after ascension he actually returns to his Father, but "coming" will be appropriate to use if he speaks to the Father, and when he addresses his discpiles it would be more suitable to use "going" in his kingdom, if the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is what is actually meant. However, I think that it is not the case. My suggestion that Jesus actually means his Second coming, grounded on the verb used, is further boosted by the emphasized phrases in the quotations.

As far as the objection that the Gospels are not written in the lifetime of the disciples of Jesus is concerned (and hence it would be absurd that "this generation" means the lifetime of his listeners), I agree that when their religious belief is at stake, people don't rationalize too much. In this context, it is even more unexplainable to me how can anyone still be a JW after their doomsday prophecies have failed on several occasions and they revise that date so frequently. This obviously bothers few, if any of their followers.