So Much for Promises

[Skwim]

When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.

Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. So his comment about “this generation” logically had an application down to 70 C.E. However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence.—Mt 24.

Blame the author of Matthew.

Okay. One can't trust anything Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John say.

.

 

[ERLOS]

In Matthew 24, Jesus warns about the future and the end of time when everything will be destroyed and he will return. In verse 34 he even says when this will happen.

34 Truly I tell you, this generation ["This people" "The people who are living" "The people of this day" "The people living now" "The people of this time"] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
​

So what's going on? None of this came true. Was Jesus lying? Was he mistaken? Did he change his mind?



.
.

In fact, in another place, Jesus said no-one but the Father knew when the final end would come. There are several contradictions in the gospels, which gives more cause for their validity -- that these kinks were not conveniently ironed out. The monks who copied and re-copied made every effort to scrupulously reproduce them.

The early Christians, belived in an immanent end of the world and final coming of the Christ.

The meaning of the above statement by Christ was obviously about the coming Jewish rebellion and the utter destruction and dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Titus. Massada in the year 66. It's easy to see how it was interposed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org

William Lane Craig? The one that relies on a dishonest version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? He may be less dishonest than most but he still fails.

 

[Fool]

What "understanding," the apologists' explanation? No.


I posted because as it stands it appears that Jesus broke his promise. And just to be clear, I want my posts to say what I want them to say because that's what I want to say.

I also note that you've offered no explanation. Why is that? Is there none?

.

you're defending an interpretation of text. your interpretation. someone who defends something that is considered controversial is taking an apologist position.

 

[Kenny]

I don't have a current theology, just questions about Christian theology.

.

more like statements in the form of a question.

 

[Kenny]

The understanding is what the verse says, and the verse is a failed prophecy. The same prophecy is found in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 16:28, and the meaning is even clearer in those verses.

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.

And they did, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

 

[Kenny]

Tale a look at what I added in brackets to Matthew 24:34 in my OP:"This people" "The people who are living" "The people of this day" "The people living now" "The people of this time." These and others are all alternate versions of γενεά (genea) or "generations" given in other Bibles. Not one of them hint the event will take place in future generations. In fact they pin down the time of the event quite nicely. So, not only doesn't your word carry any weight, which is all you've presented, but other scholars and translators in effect say you're wrong.

.

Actually... no.

The context starts at the beginning:
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.

No one in His time came saying "I am the Messiah"... so "this people" are noted to be in "the generation" that saw all of these happening.

 

[Apologes]

William Lane Craig? The one that relies on a dishonest version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? He may be less dishonest than most but he still fails.

You'd better provide an account of why that argument is dishonest (if an argument can even be dishonest) as it seems serious enough to pass through the peer-review process of proffesional journals in analytic philosophy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd better provide an account of why that argument is dishonest (if an argument can even be dishonest) as it seems serious enough to pass through the peer-review process of proffesional journals in analytic philosophy.

Really? That terribly flawed argument has passed peer review? I have my doubts. And it is probably not the bastardized version that Craig uses. An argument becomes "dishonest" when it has been refuted countless times and yet it is continually used. The problem with Craig's argument is that he tries to argue that the universe had to have a "cause" that started it. That may be true. But then he makes the giant and unsupported leap that that cause was a god and specifically the Christian God. He tries to do so by defining that cause as "God" that is dishonest since it is a rather worthless definition of "God". God could be an unconscious uncaring natural force by that definition. Something that may be understood by man eventually. Worse yet he then assumes it has to be the Christian God with no justification whatsoever.

David Lane Craig's version of the Kalam is definitely not the version that possibly passed peer review. He merely hijacked the phrase at best.

EDIT: And as a bonus a nice article refuting the Kalam and especially the personal God version of it:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

And they did, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

You omitted verse 27 which references angels and judgment. There were no angels or judgment in the transfiguration chapter.

 

[blü 2]

In Matthew 24, Jesus warns about the future and the end of time when everything will be destroyed and he will return. In verse 34 he even says when this will happen.

34 Truly I tell you, this generation ["This people" "The people who are living" "The people of this day" "The people living now" "The people of this time"] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
​

So what's going on? None of this came true. Was Jesus lying? Was he mistaken? Did he change his mind?.

Just for the record, that's not the only time this is mentioned. A more complete list is:

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”​

Mark 13:28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

 

[Apologes]

Really? That terribly flawed argument has passed peer review? I have my doubts.

You can see the peer-reviewed articles on this section of his site among other places:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/

Your doubt about his credidentials is unjustified.

And it is probably not the bastardized version that Craig uses.

You don't know much about the Kalam do you? Craig's defense of the argument is by far the most robust and has landed him as one of its best proponents.

A testament to Craig's quality work can be found in the words of one of his critics, the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith: "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence" - Quentin Smith, "Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism", in Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 183

An argument becomes "dishonest" when it has been refuted countless times and yet it is continually used.

That's a case of a dishonest proponent who ignores criticism, not a dishonest argument. Needless to say, the Kalam is far from refuted as new literature is still written on it from both sides of the debate.

The problem with Craig's argument is that he tries to argue that the universe had to have a "cause" that started it. That may be true. But then he makes the giant and unsupported leap that that cause was a god and specifically the Christian God.

He tries to do so by defining that cause as "God" that is dishonest since it is a rather worthless definition of "God". God could be an unconscious uncaring natural force by that definition. Something that may be understood by man eventually. Worse yet he then assumes it has to be the Christian God with no justification whatsoever.

You should read more of Craig's work since he openly claims the Kalam doesn't get you to Christianity on its own hence why he proposes a cummulative case in which only the Ressurection argument serves as a piece of explicitly christian evidence.

As far as "defining God" goes, the closest he gets to playing on a definition is in his rarely used Modal Ontological Argument borrowed from Alvin Plantinga. It has nothing to do with Kalam.

Regardless, that would be flawed thinking, not a "lie for Jesus".

David Lane Craig's version of the Kalam is definitely not the version that possibly passed peer review. He merely hijacked the phrase at best.

If you had bothered to check the basic history of the argument (and Craig's career) you'd avoid such embarassing accusations.

Regardless, I do want to see what evidence you have that he hijacked the argument.

EDIT: And as a bonus a nice article refuting the Kalam and especially the personal God version of it:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf

I don't think Morriston will help you much unless he claimed somewhere in that article that Kalam is a bunch of lies and that Craig is a liar.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In Matthew 24, Jesus warns about the future and the end of time when everything will be destroyed and he will return. In verse 34 he even says when this will happen.

34 Truly I tell you, this generation ["This people" "The people who are living" "The people of this day" "The people living now" "The people of this time"] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
​

So what's going on? None of this came true. Was Jesus lying? Was he mistaken? Did he change his mind?



.
.

First there is no where that Jesus said everything will be destroyed.

Why would the trees, flowers, animals, fish and ect ------? Need to be destroyed, seeing they didn't commit anything worthy of being destroyed ?

Have you any idea what generation Jesus is referring to ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Just for the record, that's not the only time this is mentioned. A more complete list is:

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”​

Mark 13:28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

Have you any idea who death is ?
What is the name of Death ?
What generation is Jesus referring too ?
What is the parable of the fig tree, that Jesus is in reference to ?
When did the parable of the fig tree start and when does it end ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them. God never tells us it is easy to understand. It says the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom and Jesus said His words are "spirit and they are life". So you're trying to understand spiritual things with your fleshly mind. You're like those who left Jesus because He said that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus is from heaven and speaks of heavenly things often in mysteries. You are from the earth so you only understand earthly things.

The carnal human brain is unstable(unreliable) in all it's ways. Not to be trusted. We all have double minds. That is the left and right brain. We are all naturally double minded and therefore weak in our understanding. We cannot figure the things of God out on our own. To be spiritually minded is the way to understand the scriptures.

This may be of some help also
1st Corinthians 2:14--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

There are alot of things that are written in the bible, That will take Spiritually discernment to understand the things that are spiritual.

 

[ERLOS]

Yup, Jesus had set a time limit in which all of this was to take place, which would have been pretty much <70 years---the top life expectancy at that time. So what is your point? Jesus made a promise which wasn't kept. (Gotta say, reading such convoluted, run-on mid 19th century prose is enough to give one a headache.)

.



.

Verses one and two Matthew 24:1-2 refer to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, by Rome, that did in fact happen in the year 66. Whole most of those who heard Jesus speak were indeed still living. It was a terrible time. Read Josephus Jewish War.

Verses thereafter are tangled up with end-of-the-world and second coming comments.

Have another look Matthew 24.

The two separate events have got mixed up in the telling. It's really very reasonable and not difficult to understand, imo.

 

[Skwim]

In fact, in another place, Jesus said no-one but the Father knew when the final end would come. There are several contradictions in the gospels, which gives more cause for their validity -- that these kinks were not conveniently ironed out. The monks who copied and re-copied made every effort to scrupulously reproduce them.

The early Christians, belived in an immanent end of the world and final coming of the Christ.

The meaning of the above statement by Christ was obviously about the coming Jewish rebellion and the utter destruction and dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Titus. Massada in the year 66. It's easy to see how it was interposed.

Then it's interesting that the verse that follows, Matthew 24:35, says "The whole world, earth and sky, will be destroyed, but my words will last forever."

.

 

[Skwim]

Actually... no.

The context starts at the beginning:
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.

No one in His time came saying "I am the Messiah"... so "this people" are noted to be in "the generation" that saw all of these happening.

Yup, just like his promise that "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." never came to pass. So Jesus

1) Lied
2) Was mistaken
3) Changed his mind
​

Take your pick.

.

 

[ERLOS]

Then it's interesting that the verse that follows, Matthew 24:35, says "The whole world, earth and sky, will be destroyed, but my words will last forever."

.

In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask him two sepaeate questions: 1) Tell us about these events 2) AND about the end of the world.

Two different things. 1)The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) the end-of-the-world.

Christ knew that. His listeners did not.

The two events got mixed up in the telling.

As your comment Matthew 24:35 he said a lot of mysterious things. Perhaps he meant that as the Christ, his words were permanent. I don't know.

But seriously, the confusion between the destruction of the temple and thd final coming is quite obvious and not hard to explain? Imo?

 

[Skwim]

Just for the record, that's not the only time this is mentioned. A more complete list is:

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”​

Mark 13:28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

Thank you.

.