Mike(ATL)

Alright, it's my favorite time! It's the responses that either just ignore parts of what I said or just say well we can't trust the Bible anyway so hah.

Like I demonstrated, the verses that clearly say the reign of the Son of Man is coming before they die are not talking about the second coming.

So now, in showing how there should be no controversy to the "this generation" that shows up in the gospels I'm not allowed to use the gospels? Come on, if you're going to claim (with no evidence that I've seen) that the gospels were made up to somehow validate letters already written by Paul we don't have much we can even talk about.

Jack the Bodiless

Mike:
You "demonstrated" no such thing.

Let's have a look at that section of Mark again:
From your link (the definition of "genea"):
From the context, Jesus is obviously talking about a time period. This fits both 3 and 4: the multitude then living, or a period of about 30 years. 1 is obviously inappropriate, and 2 (the "passing" of a family: presumably the extinction of a family) gives no indication whatsoever of ANY timescale, so there would be no point in saying it.

This would certainly be interpreted by the listeners as an event in the near future, and this "mistake" is NOT their fault.

As I pointed out earlier: if there's an ambiguity, then it SHOULD have been clarified at the time. It wasn't, because it wasn't anticipated that this problem would arise.

You're applying an after-the-event rationalization for the failure of Jesus to show up. There's no other reason to pick such an odd interpretation of "genera". This is obvious.

The problem with Paul is the contradiction between Paul and REALITY. The contents of the gospels are irrelevant to THAT problem.

But, in general, you can't use later works to resolve a problem in earlier ones. To use an extreme example: if a verse in Revelation makes no sense without a context established in Genesis, then you can quote Genesis, because it's reasonable to assume that the author of Revelation would use that context too. You cannot, however, "interpret" a part of Genesis that you don't like by quoting from Revelation, an interpretation entirely alien to both the author and the reader for centuries to come. This is why the Christian doctrine of the "Fall", and Satan's role in it, is un-Biblical.

Doctor X

Mike:

As Jack the Bodiless demonstrates in detail, you simply failed to justify your reinterpretation of the passage.

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Dr.X.
Welcome back,,,,, where you been man? I ain't seen a post from you in several days . You been sick or something?

Doctor X

No, getting beaten up by angry men and women . . . I should have taken up golf . . . where I was had no internet connection--I had a PM demanding why I did not answer a direct question.

Nevertheless, it did have its religious connotations--particularly worship of Dionysius . . . I am not a heathen, you know. . . .

--J.D.

Mike(ATL)

How from the context do you think the 3. and 4. definitions apply but not 2.? From the context it seems to me He is "obviously" using the 2. definition.

Mark 13:30-23
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Tell me, why would He say that it will definitely happen within 30 years but not even He knows when it will be? That doesn't make any sense. More appropriately it seems He is saying this "race" will not pass away. However, as I've already said, if that still is not enough to convince you look at the long list of things Jesus says have to happen before the second coming. For example the gospel must be preached to all nations. This is not the kind of thing that can be done in 30 years. You say according to the context the 3. and 4. definitions are obviously what He means. What context are you looking at? And please for the sake of my sanity do not resort to that lame "God should've known how all languages and translations would make these words appear so it's His fault anyway" argument.

By the way, thanks for the good scripture-based discussion, hope we can clear this up and hope to see you around in the future.

Doctor X

The author could not be more specific.

--J.D.

mark9950

Unless I am mistaken jesus supposidly came back after he died and thomas put his finger in his wounds.In this instance there is no record of any of those signs.

What this in my opinion would mean either one of two things.Either jesus is a liar or he is coming again in a near future event for a third coming.

That would really depend on when the books are written though.If they were written before his instance with thomas than it would be a lie because there were no signs after his death or were the signs there at the instance of his death and no one really knew?

.Jesus came to the earth as a baby.he came back after his death and resurrection to meet thomas,he is coming back again a third time?

Also when was 2 peter written before or after jesus died?

If written after the instance with thomas than they believed he is coming a third time.They believed he was coming a third time?

Is there a cart before the horse?

Jack the Bodiless

All he's saying here is that he doesn't know the day or the hour. He isn't saying that he has no idea of the approximate timescale: he's already given that!
The known world wasn't very large in those days. Preaching the gospel in all the then-known nations seems quite feasible in 30 years.
This is the context: "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." He's specifying signs, and a timescale. How does "this family shall not be extinct till these things be done" fit in? Which family? The Israelites? Why are they likely to be going extinct?
The problem isn't with the English language. The claim is in the original Greek of the texts, both of the gospels and of Paul. It's also evidently in the Aramaic of the oral tradition of the early Christians, or why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter?

gregor

Mike

And what part of "some standing here not tasting death" did not mean a return within +/- 30 years?