This Generation Will Not Pass Away:

[Overcomer]

Jesus talks about the destruction of the temple and signs of the end times in Matt. 24:1-35:

1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 Do you see all these things? he asked. Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Tell us, they said, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

4 Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, I am the Messiah, and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15 So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation,[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel"let the reader understand" 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now"and never to be equaled again.

22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Messiah! or, There he is! do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 So if anyone tells you, There he is, out in the wilderness, do not go out; or, Here he is, in the inner rooms, do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29 Immediately after the distress of those days


the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

30 Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Verse 34 has been the subject of many a debate. My questions are as follows:

What did Jesus mean when he said "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened?" Who is "this generation"?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 266 by tam]

So He was obviously not limited in His knowledge or in His wisdom to a 'man of that time'.

There is nothing in the Bible conclusively indicating that Jesus had any more knowledge than anyone else in the first century. I would argue that Confucius demonstrated far greater wisdom than Jesus.

[polonius]

Tam posted:

(I will reiterate that upon His resurrection, He also appeared and disappeared before His apostles, ascended up into the sky until He entered the spiritual realm, etc. Even before His death, resurrection and ascension, He walked on water. Though technically, I suppose that is still walking.)

RESPONSE:

Please note that the original ending in the gospel of Mark, the earliest written (about 70 AD) now called the "shorter ending," did not have an Ascension account. This (the longer ending) was added in the second century along with the safely drinking poison by Christ's followers, etc.

As for walking on water, even I can do that. Just like Jesus, I know where the rocks were!

[Elijah John]

Tam posted:

(I will reiterate that upon His resurrection, He also appeared and disappeared before His apostles, ascended up into the sky until He entered the spiritual realm, etc. Even before His death, resurrection and ascension, He walked on water. Though technically, I suppose that is still walking.)

RESPONSE:

Please note that the original ending in the gospel of Mark, the earliest written (about 70 AD) now called the "shorter ending," did not have an Ascension account. This (the longer ending) was added in the second century along with the safely drinking poison by Christ's followers, etc.

As for walking on water, even I can do that. Just like Jesus, I know where the rocks were!

And anyone who ice skates, "walks" on water!

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 263 by tam]

Yes, Jesus, Yahshua, you know who we are speaking of.

My Lord is not "Jesus". "Jesus" is more like the Hollywood version that man (and religion) has made, and not the true person.

So, "your Lord" is not the Jesus spoken of in the vast majority of English translations of the New Testaments?

I do know of one version of the Bible/New Testament that you may be interested in, one that uses the name "Yahshua" exclusively in the NT and "Yahweh" instead of "LORD" in the "Old" Testament.

It is called the Restoration Study Bible. It's the King James Version, only with those slight but significant alterations.

I actually like of your use of "Yahshua" for Jesus. Seriously, I came to the same conclusion before I discoverd the RSB, and before I learned of your usage. I like the rendering "Yahshua" because it clearly incorporates the sacred name of God, "Yah", the abbreviation for "Yahweh"..

I think we differ though, in that I don't find the usage of "Jesus" quite so objectionable as you seem to.

Regarding my assertions, how I "know" I should say I simply see no evidence at all that Jesus was not a man of his times. He displayed no extraordinary knowledge. Wisdom, yes, knowledge? Not so much.

We should take care not to equate speculation with Divine writ and revelation. Yes, Yahshua said some things about the other world that cannot be proven nor can they be disproven. But he was clearly wrong in predicting his return in the lifeime of his own apostles.

Either that, or the New Testament was wrong, and again, several other writers also shared Jesus apocalyptic expectations in their own lifetimes, in their own generation. They too, were men of their times.

Yes, there is a possibility that I could be wrong in my interpretaion of passages such as Matthew 16.28. But I was not looking for skeptical evidence when I discovered that passage. On the contrary, I was studying the Bible as a Catholic believer. The passage opened my eyes in a disturbing way. "How can this be" I wondered, "was Jesus wrong? If not, the New Testament really seems to be wrong".

Either way, there would be no way that either the Bible or Yahshua was infallible in my estimation, from that point on.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

Peace to you EJ,

[Replying to post 263 by tam]

Yes, Jesus, Yahshua, you know who we are speaking of.

My Lord is not "Jesus". "Jesus" is more like the Hollywood version that man (and religion) has made, and not the true person.

So, "your Lord" is not the Jesus spoken of in the vast majority of English translations of the New Testaments?

No, my Lord is not the "Jesus" put forth by man and/or religion; often made in their image (ie, Republican "Jesus"; the "Jesus" who is going to come back and kill everyone; the "Jesus" who is part of a trinity; hipppie "Jesus"; gun-toting "Jesus"; the "Catholic Jesus"; the "Protestant Jesus"; the "WTS Jesus"; the "historical Jesus"; etc.). Few seek to truly know Him as He truly is. Many - even those who profess to be Christian - treat Him as though He truly is dead, and not someone they could hear and speak with and truly know.

I do know of one version of the Bilbe/New Testament that you may be interested in, one that uses the name "Yahshua" exclusively in the NT and "Yahweh" for "LORD" in the "Old" Testament.

It is called the Restoration Study Bible. It's the KJV, only with those slight but significant alterations.

I was not referring to anything that is written, per se, but thank you, EJ.

I actually like of your use of "Yahshua" for Jesus. Seriously, I came to the same conclusion before I discoverd the RSB, and before I learned of your usage. I like the rendering "Yahshua" because it clearly incorporates the sacred name of God, "Yah", the abbreviation.

Yes, and it shows the true meaning of that name.

Jah'eshua... JAH saves/savior of JAH.

This is His name for a reason.


(I know we are spelling it somewhat different, but the sound is the same, and if we are calling upon a name, then the sound is what matters.)

I think we differ though, in that I don't find the usage of "Jesus" quite so offensive (for lack of a better word) as you seem to.

Yes, I understand.


But truth matters; the moment I learned that "Jesus" was not and was never the name of my Lord, I could no longer use it. I did not know His true name at that time, but I also could not use a name that I now knew was false. I cannot apply something false to my Lord (who is the Truth). There is enough falsehood out there about Christ and His Father.

I also use His name (rather than the traditional, but incorrect, "Jesus") out of love for Him. As I think anyone would do for someone they love.

Regarding my assertions, how I "know" I should say I simply see no evidence at all that Jesus was not a man of his times. He displayed no extraordinary knowledge. Wisdom, yes, knowledge? Not so much.

Thank you.

You are not going by what you know, but by what you see, and what we see is not necessarily what is true; that is a fact (Rev 3:18).


I must depend upon my Lord to know what is true.

We should take care not to equate speculation with Divine writ and revelation. Yes, Yahshua said some things about the other world that cannot be proven nor can they be disproven. But he was clearly wrong in predicting his return in the lifeime of his own apostles.

Well that (the bolded part) is the thing being debated, is it not?

To that and to the rest (the stuff that you said could not be proven or disproven), if God led you to embrace His Son as your rabbi, do you think that God led you to embrace someone as your rabbi (your teacher) who would speak and teach falsely?

Either that, or the New Testament was wrong, and again, several other writers also shared Jesus apocalyptic expectations in their own lifetimes, in their own generation. They too, were men of their times.

Or you are wrong in your understanding (which you admit to the possibility below).

Yes, there is a possibility that I could be wrong in my interpretaion of passages such as Matthew 16.28. But I was not looking for skeptical evidence when I discovered that passage.

You seem to place a lot of weight on this. I don't think that matters, EJ.

On the contrary, I was studying the Bible as a Catholic believer.

Okay, but that is not the same as knowing Christ, is it?

The passage opened my eyes in a disturbing way. "How can this be" I wondered, "was Jesus wrong? If not, the New Testament really seems to be wrong".

Do you recall Christ teaching about Him being the true manna from heaven; that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, that unless we do this we have no life in us? His disciples found this to be a hard teaching... and they also asked 'how can this be'... and many of these disciples of Christ left Him. But they did not leave Him because of the hard teaching. They left Him because they did not truly believe. Had they truly believed in Him, they would have remained despite Him teaching something they found to be a hard teaching; something that they did not understand. They would have been like the Twelve, when Christ asked them if they wanted to leave also, and Peter said:

Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.





**


Some here might want to note that His words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were not the 'plain and obvious meaning' as some of you keep saying we should accept. His words were spirit (and life), as He said Himself.

Either way, there would be no way that either the Bible or Yahshua was infallible imo, from that point on.

Well, the bible is not infallible. No need for anyone to state their opinion on that; that much is fact, even if one were just to consider translation and scribal errors (Jeremiah 8:8).

But Jaheshua speaks the truth and He does so just as His Father commands Him; truth is His language; the sword that comes out of His mouth.


"I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say.




May you and anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, to be able to get a sense of these things, and to hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to YOU, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life".



Peace again to you, and to your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

He clarifies that meaning in Matthew 23 in much detail, and gives further description elsewhere.

RESPONSE: Jesus is not speaking of his second coming in Matthew 23

"The persecution of Jesus disciples by this generation involves the persecutors in the guilt of their murderous ancestors." See footnote to what Jesus says in the New American Bible

Yes, it is "amazing what some try to argue to avoid the obvious plain meaning" Jesus so clearly conveyed. So true. We have the clear expression "this generation" regarding Jesus second coming in two gospels, we have Jesus' claim that his disciples will not have preached to all the towns in Israel before his second coming, we have Jesus' claim to the high Priest that the priest will see Jesus' return.

But Jesus was in error in all four cases.

Right, he is not speaking of his second coming in Matthew 23.

He was speaking there about "this generation", the subject of this thread, which his second coming, his return, is not.

In it he specifically answers the thread question, "who is "this generation?", making the meaning plain and obvious.

[polonius]

Jesus also said that his apostles would have not gone through all the towns in Israel before he returned and the chief priest would see his return. But none ever did.

[Checkpoint]

Jesus also said that his apostles would have not gone through all the towns in Israel before he returned and the chief priest would see his return. But none ever did.

Both of us are oh so predictable.

We are not debating but talking past each other.

I make my points and you do not make any effort to refute them, but make your case for what you consider to be the key issue.

You make your points and I do not make any effort to refute them, but make my case for what I consider to be the key issue.

Can we at least agree on that?

[Elijah John]

Jesus also said that his apostles would have not gone through all the towns in Israel before he returned and the chief priest would see his return. But none ever did.

Both of us are oh so predictable.

We are not debating but talking past each other.

I make my points and you do not make any effort to refute them, but make your case for what you consider to be the key issue.

You make your points and I do not make any effort to refute them, but make my case for what I consider to be the key issue.

Can we at least agree on that?

In this thread, Polonius has been providing context by citing other examples where Jesus predicted his return in the lifetime of his apostles without reference to the word "generation". So there is no need to quibble about the definition of that word. There are other examples which demonstrate that "Jesus" (or the Gospel writers) were just plain wrong. Those examples provide context which is helpful in interpreting Jesus meaning when he did use the term "generation" in reference to his return.

[Checkpoint]

Jesus also said that his apostles would have not gone through all the towns in Israel before he returned and the chief priest would see his return. But none ever did.

Both of us are oh so predictable.

We are not debating but talking past each other.

I make my points and you do not make any effort to refute them, but make your case for what you consider to be the key issue.

You make your points and I do not make any effort to refute them, but make my case for what I consider to be the key issue.

Can we at least agree on that?

In this thread, Polonius has been providing context by citing other examples where Jesus predicted his return in the lifetime of his apostles without reference to the word "generation". So there is no need to quibble about the definition of that word.

That is not a valid context, for as you put it, it is of verses 'without reference to the word "generation".'

The valid context is verses where Jesus does use the word "generation". Nowhere did he use it to describe or include "his apostles".

It is not about "the definition of that word" but about how Jesus used that word.

There are other examples which demonstrate that "Jesus" (or the Gospel writers) were just plain wrong. Those examples provide context which is helpful in interpreting Jesus meaning when he did use the term "generation" in reference to his return.

It is not a matter of whether anyone was "just plain wrong".

Instead, the only examples, in the synoptic Gospels, that are "helpful in interpreting Jesus meaning when he did use the term "generation" in reference to" a group of people, are those specific usages.