Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

[Free]

Do you know that English words have many meanings? This is common in languages. Which meaning fits is in the context.

That is the point I made. Why are you repeating it back to me?

So is it your position that all the racial Jews will die all at once or bit by bit “when these things” start happening? You do then embrace that at the end all the genetic Jews will be dead having “passed away” right? That’s your translation right?

Please read what I wrote. There is no way to get that from what I said.

Yes they did.

Who did and what did they do? I don't see how that relates to what I said.

So what do you say? Generation or race? Will you choose?

There are more meanings than just those two.

That happened. It’s a common Jewish idiom.

First, show that it is a common Jewish idiom, and then show that "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" happened.

It’s tribes of the land and the earth doesn’t have many tribes in any case. I don’t belong to a tribe and I doubt anyone here does. So no tribes mourning is now possible except for native Americans. They are in tribes.

This is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. You've picked one word, which has various meanings and was written in a first century context, to strongly imply that what is stated in the verse has happened. So, now, you must prove that Jesus has returned and this is the wonderful eternal life that was promised. I seem to have missed where there are wars and famines in heaven, and where idolaters, adulterers, liars, lovers of self and evil, haters of good, etc. inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Happening as we speak but the word is “messengers.”

It is? Where is Jesus? His return is said to be visible to everyone, but I don't know of anyone who saw it. When was the loud trumpet call?

Yup, exactly as foretold.

There is no evidence that verses 29-31 have occurred. This is the main error of preterism. It has to twist things that haven't happened to fit.

Yes

What is the evidence? How do you know?

Well, experts disagree as to whether Jesus was the Son of God. Experts disagree as to if there is a God.

In context, Christian experts do not disagree as to whether or not Jesus was the Son of God nor if there is a God. Please pay attention to the context of this discussion on Christian forums, by Christians.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That is the point I made. Why are you repeating it back to me?

Because you gave the impression Greek is unique.

Please read what I wrote. There is no way to get that from what I said.

Of course you didn’t commit to a definition. But when you do, there are obvious conclusions attached,

Who did and what did they do? I don't see how that relates to what I said.

You said the prophesies of Jesus hadn’t happened and they certainly did,.

There are more meanings than just those two.

Will you choose one?

First, show that it is a common Jewish idiom, and then show that "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" happened.

Do you want the many scriptures in the past referring to this using those expressions but against an ancient people? I would start a thread.

This is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. You've picked one word, which has various meanings and was written in a first century context, to strongly imply that what is stated in the verse has happened.

Your eschatology rests on making that word mean something besides the obvious, that generation standing there. Admit it.

So, now, you must prove that Jesus has returned and this is the wonderful eternal life that was promised.

No, the return hadn’t happened yet as his enemies haven’t been made a footstool for his feet. There will be NO signs before that. You ought to ask what I believe before you attack the straw man.

I seem to have missed where there are wars and famines in heaven, and where idolaters, adulterers, liars, lovers of self and evil, haters of good, etc. inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Ah, there are never famines in heaven. The rest is straw man pure. Do believe this will happen in the future??

It is? Where is Jesus? His return is said to be visible to everyone, but I don't know of anyone who saw it. When was the loud trumpet call?


There is no evidence that verses 29-31 have occurred. This is the main error of preterism. It has to twist things that haven't happened to fit.

No, you don’t understand what you’re opposed to. It would be wiser to find out before you attack these strawmen.

What is the evidence? How do you know?


In context, Christian experts do not disagree as to whether or not Jesus was the Son of God nor if there is a God. Please pay attention to the context of this discussion on Christian forums, by Christians.

Ah, changing the goal
posts? Now it’s Christian experts. And I think you are not correct. I’ve heard christian theologians questioning these elementary things.

 

[Tweeter]

It seems you may not understand how translation, language, or grammar work. Firstly, many words have multiple meanings. Secondly, it is context that determines which the meaning, so we cannot just plug in any meaning we wish, as your fallacious argument does. Thirdly, as I said, this is how and the number of times genea is translated in the KJV: generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1.

Here are the definitions of genea:

Definition

fathered, birth, nativity that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation the whole multitude of men living at the same time an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Free, use your brain. All four of those are more or less the same thing, as I just said, something I just previously pointed out.

Take, Luke 16:8 "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. (NASB)" Which of the above four definition applies here? None of those four definitions are "kind". Most good translations use "generation" here (ESV, KJV, etc.). By your reasoning, most good translations, and your source of four definitions of genea, must be botched. Even the NASB that you're using has a footnote that the word means "generation."

The word "kind" is useless Luke 16:8. Did you think the sons of the world and sons of light are the same people until you read this verse and saw they were different kinds? Why do I need to tell you this? Why don't you reason these things out yourself?

Yes, Greek words often have different meanings, but genea always means generation. You don't understand (what you ironically accused me of) how things works. When translations use different words for genea (age, kind, generation), it's not because this word has different meanings, it's because they're trying to smooth out the reading or insert a doctrinal spin. Or, the in case of the KJV, the words in 1600 carried differently meanings than they do in 2023.

And, again, changing "this generation" in Matthew 24 to anything else makes is absurd, even if genea could mean something else.

On another subject, I'm so tired of the self-righteous stupidity of many Christians, especially in pursuit of their harmful, nonsense doctrines. This is one of the reasons lots of people with intelligence or leaving the church. GENEA ALWAYS MEANS GENREATION. There's some nuances, but I'm keeping it simple for you.

 

[Free]

Because you gave the impression Greek is unique.

Where did I mention "Greek" in my first two points? My point was that all languages do it. Then I moved onto Greek in particular as it pertains to this discussion.

You said the prophesies of Jesus hadn’t happened and they certainly did,.

You need to perhaps read a little more carefully. I have clearly agreed that those things referring to the destruction of the Temple have happened. I only said that verses 29-31 haven't happened since they are speaking of his return, his second coming, which clearly has not happened yet.

Do you want the many scriptures in the past referring to this using those expressions but against an ancient people? I would start a thread.

As far as the English translation goes, that is the only place that phrase--"Immediately after the tribulation of those days"--is used.

Your eschatology rests on making that word mean something besides the obvious, that generation standing there. Admit it.

Again, you said: "It’s tribes of the land and the earth doesn’t have many tribes in any case. I don’t belong to a tribe and I doubt anyone here does. So no tribes mourning is now possible except for native Americans. They are in tribes."

And this is still my reply: This is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. You've picked one word, which has various meanings and was written in a first century context, to strongly imply that what is stated in the verse has happened.

Your argument provides no basis to say that the event has already happened.

No, the return hadn’t happened yet as his enemies haven’t been made a footstool for his feet. There will be NO signs before that. You ought to ask what I believe before you attack the straw man.

Ah, there are never famines in heaven. The rest is straw man pure. Do believe this will happen in the future??

No, you don’t understand what you’re opposed to. It would be wiser to find out before you attack these strawmen.

There is no straw man. I was speaking rhetorically to prove my point. You have just admitted that Jesus hasn't returned yet, which means that verses 29-31 haven't happened yet, which is precisely my point. This also shows that your argument about "tribes" is disingenuous.

So, when Jesus says, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," to what "things" is he referring?

Ah, changing the goal

posts? Now it’s Christian experts.

No, I didn't change the goal posts. We're Christians having a discussion about the Bible on Christian forums. Are there non-Christian experts who would disagree? Of course, but using your argument we could dismiss anything and everything. It's interesting though, that you need to bring in unbelieving experts in order to try and dismiss my point.

And I think you are not correct. I’ve heard christian theologians questioning these elementary things.

If a theologian is legitimately questioning whether or not God exists or that Jesus is the Son of God, then he can't be a Christian, by definition.

My whole point in all of this is that what is stated in Matt 24 isn't nearly as clear-cut as you say it is.

 

[Free]

Free, use your brain.

I'm only going to say this one last time: stop with the personal attacks. They are a violation of the ToS.

All four of those are more or less the same thing, as I just said, something I just previously pointed out.

Take, Luke 16:8 "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. (NASB)" Which of the above four definition applies here? None of those four definitions are "kind". Most good translations use "generation" here (ESV, KJV, etc.). By your reasoning, most good translations, and your source of four definitions of genea, must be botched. Even the NASB that you're using has a footnote that the word means "generation."

This is the problem with reading things word-for-word--the meaning can get lost in translation. This is what M. R. Vincent says about it:

In their generation (εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν)

The A. V. misses the point, following Wyc. Lit., in reference to their own generation; i.e., the body of the children of this world to which they belong, and are kindred. They are shrewd in dealing with their own kind; since, as is shown in the parable, where the debtors were accomplices of the steward they are all alike unscrupulous. Tynd., in their kind.

The word "kind" is useless Luke 16:8. Did you think the sons of the world and sons of light are the same people until you read this verse and saw they were different kinds? Why do I need to tell you this? Why don't you reason these things out yourself?

You don't need to me anything of the sort. How do you even think that that is an understanding someone would have?

Yes, Greek words often have different meanings, but genea always means generation. You don't understand (what you ironically accused me of) how things works. When translations use different words for genea (age, kind, generation), it's not because this word has different meanings, it's because they're trying to smooth out the reading or insert a doctrinal spin. Or, the in case of the KJV, the words in 1600 carried differently meanings than they do in 2023.

It's because the word has different meanings, some of them more nuanced than others.

And, again, changing "this generation" in Matthew 24 to anything else makes is absurd, even if genea could mean something else.

On another subject, I'm so tired of the self-righteous stupidity of many Christians, especially in pursuit of their harmful, nonsense doctrines. This is one of the reasons lots of people with intelligence or leaving the church. GENEA ALWAYS MEANS GENREATION. There's some nuances, but I'm keeping it simple for you.

The only one being self-righteous here is you. I strongly suggest you knock it off.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Where did I mention "Greek" in my first two points? My point was that all languages do it. Then I moved onto Greek in particular as it pertains to this discussion.

Since everyone here speaks a language it isn’t worth saying. What is worth saying is you committing to what you think.

You need to perhaps read a little more carefully. I have clearly agreed that those things referring to the destruction of the Temple have happened. I only said that verses 29-31 haven't happened since they are speaking of his return, his second coming, which clearly has not happened yet.

You need to ASK me what I believe before attacking the straw man.

As far as the English translation goes, that is the only place that phrase--"Immediately after the tribulation of those days"--is used.


Again, you said: "It’s tribes of the land and the earth doesn’t have many tribes in any case. I don’t belong to a tribe and I doubt anyone here does. So no tribes mourning is now possible except for native Americans. They are in tribes."

And this is still my reply: This is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. You've picked one word, which has various meanings and was written in a first century context, to strongly imply that what is stated in the verse has happened.

Obviously you have no rationalanswer for that one so you insist the point that I successfully made is a “gnat.” I will remember that and use it on your points.

Your argument provides no basis to say that the event has already happened.

History does that.

There is no straw man. I was speaking rhetorically to prove my point. You have just admitted that Jesus hasn't returned yet, which means that verses 29-31 haven't happened yet, which is precisely my point. This also shows that your argument about "tribes" is disingenuous.

Ah, the ad hominem. I experienced that from you early on. It was a valid argument and futurists use that phrase to insist their GT is worldwide. Futurists don’t think it trivial at all. You have difficulty not personally attacking, don’t you?

So, when Jesus says, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," to what "things" is he referring?


No, I didn't change the goal posts. We're Christians having a discussion about the Bible on Christian forums. Are there non-Christian experts who would disagree? Of course, but using your argument we could dismiss anything and everything. It's interesting though, that you need to bring in unbelieving experts in order to try and dismiss my point.

Will you commit to what “this generation” means or not?

If a theologian is legitimately questioning whether or not God exists or that Jesus is the Son of God, then he can't be a Christian, by definition.

They say they are.

My whole point in all of this is that what is stated in Matt 24 isn't nearly as clear-cut as you say it is.

But will you commit to a position?

 

[Free]

You need to ASK me what I believe before attacking the straw man.

What straw man? I clearly said there was no straw man, that I was speaking rhetorically.

Obviously you have no rationalanswer for that one so you insist the point that I successfully made is a “gnat.” I will remember that and use it on your points.

Personal attacks are not welcome on these forums. My answer was rational. Care to address it?

History does that.

Does what?

Ah, the ad hominem. I experienced that from you early on. It was a valid argument and futurists use that phrase to insist their GT is worldwide. Futurists don’t think it trivial at all. You have difficulty not personally attacking, don’t you?

There is no personal attack. You made an argument to a certain word, "tribes," to show that what happened in a verse--the second coming of Christ--has happened already. Yet, you then say the second coming of Christ hasn't happened already. That is being disingenuous with your initial argument. But, instead of addressing the contradiction with your preterist interpretation, you deflect by a false accusation of a personal attack.

Either Jesus has returned or he has not. If he hasn't, as you have since agreed, then your argument to the use of "tribes" falls apart.

They say they are.

Irrelevant.

But will you commit to a position?

Not at this point.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What straw man? I clearly said there was no straw man, that I was speaking rhetorically.


Personal attacks are not welcome on these forums. My answer was rational. Care to address it?


Does what?


There is no personal attack. You made an argument to a certain word, "tribes," to show that what happened in a verse--the second coming of Christ--has happened already. Yet, you then say the second coming of Christ hasn't happened already. That is being disingenuous with your initial argument. But, instead of addressing the contradiction with your preterist interpretation, you deflect by a false accusation of a personal attack.

Either Jesus has returned or he has not. If he hasn't, as you have since agreed, then your argument to the use of "tribes" falls apart.


Irrelevant.


Not at this point.

You likely do not understand what futurists believe. It is rather complex. That is likely the problem. I say this because your responses do not make sense unless you do not understand it. One can learn what futurists believe but it is not done in a few words and takes some hours. But I have no wish to continue and so no wish to explain it to you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What straw man? I clearly said there was no straw man, that I was speaking rhetorically.


Personal attacks are not welcome on these forums. My answer was rational. Care to address it?


Does what?


There is no personal attack. You made an argument to a certain word, "tribes," to show that what happened in a verse--the second coming of Christ--has happened already. Yet, you then say the second coming of Christ hasn't happened already. That is being disingenuous with your initial argument. But, instead of addressing the contradiction with your preterist interpretation, you deflect by a false accusation of a personal attack.

Either Jesus has returned or he has not. If he hasn't, as you have since agreed, then your argument to the use of "tribes" falls apart.


Irrelevant.


Not at this point.

You likely do not understand what futurists believe. It is rather complex. That is likely the problem. I say this because your responses do not make sense unless you do not understand it. One can learn what futurists believe but it is not done in a few words and takes some hours. But I have no wish to continue and so no wish to explain it to you.

 

[Free]

You likely do not understand what futurists believe. It is rather complex. That is likely the problem. I say this because your responses do not make sense unless you do not understand it. One can learn what futurists believe but it is not done in a few words and takes some hours. But I have no wish to continue and so no wish to explain it to you.

I wasn’t making an argument for what “futurists” believe. I was pointing out the flaws in your arguments, which you didn’t address.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I wasn’t making an argument for what “futurists” believe. I was pointing out the flaws in your arguments, which you didn’t address.

It is because you do not understand my position which is what futurists believe. You did not point out flaws, you raised issues that show that you do not understand my position. Your responses indicate a lack of understanding what was presented or lack of understanding the position. Your protests indicate an understanding way too simple for the actual position. You assume things and address that.

It is similar to the discussion I have with one member on the abomination that causes desolation which he assumes is a statue. This is an assumption but if I can not get him to see that this is NOT what is said, his responses will continue to be based on that assumption. Your responses are based on your assumptions of my position that do not match my position.

 

[DJT_47]

Reading only the Matthew 24 account is problematic. You need to read the parallel scriptures, Mark 13, and Luke 21 to properly understand Matthew 24.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Reading only the Matthew 24 account is problematic. You need to read the parallel scriptures, Mark 13, and Luke 21 to properly understand Matthew 24.

Daniel and Revelation is helpful as well. But of course, to know when prophesies were fulfilled since Matthew 24, one needs to know something about history. If one is ignorant of the events in the 65-70 AD, then one thinks they are all future. The Jews do not acknowledge that the prophesies about the Messiah are fulfilled because they are ignorant of by lack of education or choice of the events of Jesus' life. Those prophesies are still future for them.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is because you do not understand my position which is what futurists believe. You did not point out flaws, you raised issues that show that you do not understand my position. Your responses indicate a lack of understanding what was presented or lack of understanding the position. Your protests indicate an understanding way too simple for the actual position. You assume things and address that.

It is similar to the discussion I have with one member on the abomination that causes desolation which he assumes is a statue. This is an assumption but if I can not get him to see that this is NOT what is said, his responses will continue to be based on that assumption. Your responses are based on your assumptions of my position that do not match my position.

It wrote the above in the early hours of the morning and so made a pretty big mistake. Free, your responses indicate that you do not understand my position which is NOT the futurist one. That position (futurism) can be summed up in one sentence which is, those events in Matthew 24 are in the future. My position is more complex and you do not understand it and so made assumptions and responses from that false thinking. Preterism is complex and takes hours to get the full understanding as it is based on a LOT of information. I have no desire to explain it and so would like to move on. It is just too difficult to exchange with someone who does not understand the fundamental points, thinks they do, and employs a method in exchanges that is undesirable.

 

[Tweeter]

The A. V. misses the point, following Wyc. Lit., in reference to their own generation; i.e., the body of the children of this world to which they belong, and are kindred. They are shrewd in dealing with their own kind; since, as is shown in the parable, where the debtors were accomplices of the steward they are all alike unscrupulous. Tynd., in their kind.

Kuddos, you found someone who thinks "kind" is an appropriate for genea in Luke 16:8, but you error by appealing to authority. But, wait! Do you read what you copy and paste? Vince, said, as you quoted, "[Literally], in reference to their own generation." Vince is in a minority who thinks a non-literal translation is acceptable here, but he's wrong. I won't bother going into an explanation, as you have already ignored every point I've already made.

If you think Vince is an authority, why don't you accept that he thinks your theology is pig droppings?

 

[Tweeter]

No, the return hadn’t happened yet as his enemies haven’t been made a footstool for his feet. There will be NO signs before that. You ought to ask what I believe before you attack the straw man.

In Matthew 24, Jesus coming is a figure of speech that was fulfilled in 70 AD. Outside of Matthew 24, a case might be made for Jesus coming as something other than a figure of speech. But, making his enemies a footstool might not be a good way to gauge whether Jesus came or not, as that phrase could have a more subtle or spiritual meaning than what you're thinking. Certainly, you don't think Jesus is going to turn futurists into furniture when he comes, so we all agree that a literal interpretation is wrong.

 

[Edward]

That happened. It’s a common Jewish idiom.

Are you saying that Matthew 24:29 contains an idiom?
That the sun will not be darkened? The meteor shower doesn't really happen?

If that's the case, I don't understand the idiom. What's it likened to? What really happens. You should be able to articulate that if what you say is true.

(Show your work!)

 

[Tweeter]

In that same passage "nation" is used and the word it ethos. It is not Genera. I looked up genera and it is translated generation each time. It is not translated as group of people over several generations. Now if it were to mean nation, they would have used "ethos" which is ethnic group. What Jesus is saying is the Jews will not die until all this is fulfilled which is fairly impossible as they are now scattered over the whole of the planet and what is more, I doubt any christian thinks the Jews will all one day pass away. Is that what you believe? When these things you think are future happen he Jews will all die out? That is how one has to read it right?

No, nation is in Greek "ethos" and generation is "genera" meaning a group living in a certain time frame. But again, when it "clearly has all come to pass" will all the Jews around the world then "pass away?"

If Jesus meant the Jewish race (which there's no such thing), he would have said that Jews, not genea, would exist until all these things are fulfilled. But, that worthless reply (to When?) is not what Jesus gave. Remember, when you speak the truth, militant futurists cannot understand as you're not speaking their language. Your role is to guide the innocent so they are not deceived into believing that Bible teaches futurist doctrine. You can make no more progress with a militant futurist than Jesus could make with those who want to kill him. (Hey Free, by "those", I mean the unbelieving Jews. Try not to choke on the foam coming out of your mouth.)

"This generation" literally means the people alive at the time. How doubly shameful for people who boast of taking the Bible literally to refuse to take a straightforward, clear phrase literally.

 

[Tweeter]

Are you saying that Matthew 24:29 contains an idiom?
That the sun will not be darkened? The meteor shower doesn't really happen?

If that's the case, I don't understand the idiom. What's it likened to? What really happens. You should be able to articulate that if what you say is true.

(Show your work!)

Stars fall. Meteors are not stars. Even if I entertain your desperate desire to make stars falling as meaningless as a meteor shower, it violates the context of the passage of the heavens being shaken and the sky going dark. Stop trying so hard to be obtuse.

In biblical eschatology, when stars are explained, they are always symbols. Do you understand, ALWAYS? Do your homework. Read the Bible and you might find out what the expression of stars falling means.

Have I articulated myself well enough?

 

[Tweeter]

Daniel and Revelation is helpful as well. But of course, to know when prophesies were fulfilled since Matthew 24, one needs to know something about history. If one is ignorant of the events in the 65-70 AD, then one thinks they are all future. The Jews do not acknowledge that the prophesies about the Messiah are fulfilled because they are ignorant of by lack of education or choice of the events of Jesus' life. Those prophesies are still future for them.

Those who say they are Jews, but are not Jews, think the Gospels, primarily because of Matthew 24, were written after 70 AD and they think that their genuflecting Futurists are idiots.

One need not know anything about history to know that Matthew 24 is necessarily fulfilled in the first century, for numerous reasons within that chapter. Knowing history just fills in the details.

Darby and any of his educated cult followers know history. They don't care.