I'll have it done before you leave

[This Guy]

If you took your car to a garage and asked that they fix your AC, and the mechanic said "I'll have it done before you leave", you'd figure maybe an hour or two? Something in that ball park maybe?

Yet some guy is quoted as saying "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." and it means 2000+ years.

Granted two very different time spans are being indicated, but my point is that there is little difference in the words used, yet the second statement is seen by so many to mean such a vastly different thing than the words themselves represent.

This is mostly a mild rant/vent, but I welcome relevant thoughts and comments. I just ended a E-Mail discussion about this topic, in frustration. It's amazing how those few words can be contorted to such a completely different meaning because of where they are written.

Any normal person reading the words "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." or words to that effect would have no problem understanding that whatever "all these things" are, they would be done during the normal expected span of a generation. A generation generally seen as around 30 years. If Melville had a comment about "this generation" in Moby Dick, it would have been understood. If Lincoln had made a comment about "this generation" in his Gettysburg address, it would have been understood. When The Who sang "My Generation" it was mostly un-un-understood. But for some reason using the same phrase in a book called the "Bible" and having one of the main characters say it makes it mean something completely different than the words themselves would have you believe.

There is a book called "The God Virus", by Darrel W. Ray. This book does a very good job of describing religion as a virus and explaining the many ways religions can affect people. On page 25 he says "Once infected, the individual cannot detect major contradictions in his beliefs and behavior. Belief systems become self-evident to him, and no amount of logical discourse will move him from his belief." (I take issue with some of his comments and opinions, and I've asked him, in person, a question about some stated facts, that he failed to provide a clear answer on, but he is a friendly person, and still signed my copy of the book )

The part about "no amount of logical discourse will move him from his belief." is so true.

It can of course be counter argued that atheist are the same way. We fail to see the illogic in our understanding! We only need the power of God to open our eyes to be able to see the true meaning of the Bible! But I think most of us here see the flaws in that thinking.

For those that aren't aware this is in reference to MT. 24:3-34, Mark 13:4-30 and Luke 21:7-32.


Try to comment before this generation passes!

 

[AvalonXQ]

My understanding is that Jesus is talking about the sacking of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. while at least some of his disciples were still alive.

 

[Denver]

I have heard those statements interpreted in the context of the signs and stuff that are in the same passages. And that 'this generation' is meant to reference the generation that sees those signs, and not the current one present in the passage.

I think a better reference in which to question time frames is in Revelation. This book is often used to quote end-time prophecy. But right at the beginning it refers to the things in that book as what must soon take place.

So the question should be asked, how does soon apply to an event over 1000 years away?

 

[bokonon]

The part about "no amount of logical discourse will move him from his belief." is so true.

The large number of former believers who've posted on this site suggest it's not true for everyone, so I guess the most you can accurately say is that it's true for those for whom it's true.

 

[Brainache]

My understanding is that Jesus is talking about the sacking of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. while at least some of his disciples were still alive.

So was Jesus saying that the Kingdom of God would only come about when the centre of organised religion was destroyed?

Seems an odd thing for people to organise a religion around...

 

[timhau]

So was Jesus saying that the Kingdom of God would only come about when the centre of organised religion was destroyed?

Seems an odd thing for people to organise a religion around...

Maybe they just figured out a way to indefinitely postpone the Kingdom of God, which just might be the most boring totalitarian system ever.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So was Jesus saying that the Kingdom of God would only come about when the centre of organised religion was destroyed?

The de-centralization of religion is a very real, persistent theme in New Testament Christianity. One of Jesus' early lessons (to the woman at the well) was "proper place for worship" was no longer going to be at any special physical temple. The book of Hebrews discusses how Jesus' sacrifice eliminates any further need for temple sacrifice, and how Jesus replaces our need for an earthly priest as an intermediary.
This makes more sense when you realize that Christianity was never supposed to be an "organized religion" in the Jewish/Roman sense -- it was rightfully a bunch of believers who gather where they can to worship, study, and commune together, with local wise men to help guide people in fulfilling their physical and spiritual needs. IMO, the Roman Catholic Church is far more Roman in its structure and thought patterns than it is Christian.

 

[This Guy]

My understanding is that Jesus is talking about the sacking of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. while at least some of his disciples were still alive.

Well, it may be that these things that were to happen before "this" generation passes are meant to indicate that the sacking of Jerusalem is soon to happen. But if you read the linked passages in the OP you'll see things like stars falling from the heavens (doesn't say where they will land), the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light along with other things, and they should all happen before "this" generation passes. If it was talking about the sacking of Jerusalem, then it was certainly a failed prophesy. I think we would know if the stars fell from the sky and they were still up there last night

 

[dlorde]

The part about "no amount of logical discourse will move him from his belief." is so true.

It paraphrases Swift (or Twain, or both): "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."

 

[This Guy]

I have heard those statements interpreted in the context of the signs and stuff that are in the same passages. And that 'this generation' is meant to reference the generation that sees those signs, and not the current one present in the passage.

I think a better reference in which to question time frames is in Revelation. This book is often used to quote end-time prophecy. But right at the beginning it refers to the things in that book as what must soon take place.

So the question should be asked, how does soon apply to an event over 1000 years away?

But a thousand years is like a day to the Lord! (that's one of the excuses used).

You are right that some apologist say the generation in question is the one that sees the signs. This of course makes Jesus basically say that those that see this stuff happen will see this stuff happen. My problem with that is that the passages are full of "Ye"s (and it just sounds ridicules). Some examples from Mark 13 -

7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled

9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

These are just a few of the examples. Check the links yourself, all three Gospels use pretty much the same words.

I think it important to remember that not only is he using words like Ye and You, but he is only talking to Peter, James, John and Andrew. Not some mob, or someone in the future.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

I just don't see how anyone could confuse this and think it means anything other than that Jesus thought the generation alive when he was would be the last one. That he would come back before it ended. But then I'm a silly twit, so what do I know.

 

[This Guy]

The large number of former believers who've posted on this site suggest it's not true for everyone, so I guess the most you can accurately say is that it's true for those for whom it's true.

Point taken!

I think some of us actually try to make sense of it all, and then find that it's easier said than done. I "believed" also, once. But then things started not making sense, and the more I looked the less sense it all made, until I decided that it was all BS. It then became easy to understand

 

[This Guy]

It paraphrases Swift (or Twain, or both): "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."

I like that, whoever said it.

 

[randman]

You have to look at the context. Jerusalem fell within that generation. It came to pass.

Gotta read all the gospels.

In the context of the end, the generation that sees all the signs will be the last one.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Jesus made it clear he was returning in the life time of his disciples, in multiple places. All you have left is pleading for context, otherwise you'd have to admit your belief system was wrong. It's much easier to play with context. I know if I was a God, I'd try to be as less ambiguous as possible if my message was important.

 

[randman]

Actually context is just reading something by the meaning it was intended......do you think context is not part of the language or something?

"if you were God".....well, good thing that's not the case, right?

 

[slingblade]

Actually context is just reading something by the meaning it was intended......do you think context is not part of the language or something?

The argument is that context is quite important to making sense of language.

If you remove language from its context, it can be more difficult to ascertain meaning; it leads to ambiguity, and causes misunderstanding.

Also, determining author intent when reading is usually not strictly possible. Literary scholars find that author intent may be interesting to speculate upon, but is not necessarily vital to analyzing literature, because unless you can ask the author his intent, you're often only guessing at it, through whatever lens you're using to analyze the work.

For instance, even though I have this thread and your post for context, I cannot guess as to your intent with the statement below:

"if you were God".....well, good thing that's not the case, right?

Care to enlighten?

 

[I Ratant]

The de-centralization of religion is a very real, persistent theme in New Testament Christianity. One of Jesus' early lessons (to the woman at the well) was "proper place for worship" was no longer going to be at any special physical temple. The book of Hebrews discusses how Jesus' sacrifice eliminates any further need for temple sacrifice, and how Jesus replaces our need for an earthly priest as an intermediary.
This makes more sense when you realize that Christianity was never supposed to be an "organized religion" in the Jewish/Roman sense -- it was rightfully a bunch of believers who gather where they can to worship, study, and commune together, with local wise men to help guide people in fulfilling their physical and spiritual needs. IMO, the Roman Catholic Church is far more Roman in its structure and thought patterns than it is Christian.

.
Quakers have a loose organization.
And that grated seriously on the more formally organized.
Probably they were closer to the text-book christian than those who persecuted them.

 

[I Ratant]

You have to look at the context. Jerusalem fell within that generation. It came to pass.

Gotta read all the gospels.

In the context of the end, the generation that sees all the signs will be the last one.

.
And consider that particular phrasing is a post-diction, viewed in the context of the actual writings of the gospels.
20-20 accuracy is very easy, after the fact.

 

[ingoa]

"if you were God".....well, good thing that's not the case, right?

Says who? At least he gives clear indication of his existence. That is already more then other gods ever achieved. Probably he is the the boss of all gods.

 

[This Guy]

You have to look at the context. Jerusalem fell within that generation. It came to pass.

Gotta read all the gospels.

In the context of the end, the generation that sees all the signs will be the last one.

A few questions if you please.

Do you agree that Jesus was talking to 4 people, privately when he said these things?

It appears to me that through most of the discourse Jesus was talking to and about the 4 people. From what you have said, at some point his intent or subject, if you will, shifted from these 4 people (and one would assume the rest of mankind living at that time) to some future generation. Which word or words indicate to you that this shift in subject happened?

And last, which point in this discourse did the topic shift from the fall of Jerusalem to "the end"? Which word or words alerted you to this shift in topic? I suppose it will be the same answer as the first question, but just in case I'm wrong.

Thanks