I'll have it done before you leave

[I Ratant]

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.

.
There is no "clear indication of his existence".
Not even a murky indication, just the ramblings of disturbed people writing down the noises in their heads.

 

[Bikewer]

Ehrman, the NT scholar, says Jesus was likely an Apocalyptic. For members of that sect, the "end" was indeed near, but it wasn't the "end" formulated much later in Revalations.

It was the resurrection of the Jews. The "Son Of Man" would descend from Heaven to set everything right for the Jews. Re-establish the 12 tribes, free them from occupation, etc.
Set up a proper Jewish kingdom the way it aught to be.
With, incidentally, JC literally as King of the Jews, and each of the 12 Apostles to head one of the re-formed tribes.
A very temporal event...Not some nebulous wafting off to glory sort of thing.

It was this that JC was referring to as happening in the lifetime of his followers.

When none of that happened.... The newly formed Christian sects were forced to re-think things. Revalations was written much later, in the 2nd century, as I recall, and according to scholars refers directly to events happening at the time. It's a mystical (and disguised) rant against the false prophets, bad teachings, heresies, etc. that were popping up at the time.
Nice book on the subject here:
http://www.amazon.com/History-End-W...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299955782&sr=8-1

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

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?

So if s/he were God and actually stated his/her rules and desires clearly, that would be a bad thing?

And don't give me the usual "free will" ********; God could have been perfectly clear about what He wanted and still left people free to decide to follow or not.

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.

.
There is no "clear indication of his existence".
Not even a murky indication, just the ramblings of disturbed people writing down the noises in their heads.

I think ingoa was responding to this sequence, not talking about Jesus or God:

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.

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?

 

[Didaktylos]

...My problem with that is that the passages are full of "Ye"s (and it just sounds ridicules)

Sorry to play the pedantic grammarian - but it's not ridiculous: if you look at the passage carefully you'll notice that "ye" is always used as the subject of sentence and "you" as the object, either direct or indirect.

Personal pronouns are the last remnant of declension in English, and even there some of the forms are now archaisms:

(Archaisms in square brackets)

First Person Singular: I, Me, My/Mine
Second Person Singular: [Thou, Thee, Thy/Thine]
Third Person Singular, Masculine: He, Him, His
Third Person Singular, Feminine: She, Her, Her/Hers
Third Person Singular, Neuter: It, It, Its
First Person Plural: We, Us, Our/Ours
Second Person Plural: [Ye], You, Your/Yours
Third Person Plural: They, Them, Their/Theirs

 

[Ladewig]

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?

I read all of Matthew 24 and am having a hard time not seeing it as Jesus describing His return, but I'll keep an open mind about it. Can you explain why He was not talking about His return?

 

[This Guy]

Sorry to play the pedantic grammarian - but it's not ridiculous: if you look at the passage carefully you'll notice that "ye" is always used as the subject of sentence and "you" as the object, either direct or indirect.

Personal pronouns are the last remnant of declension in English, and even there some of the forms are now archaisms:

(Archaisms in square brackets)

First Person Singular: I, Me, My/Mine
Second Person Singular: [Thou, Thee, Thy/Thine]
Third Person Singular, Masculine: He, Him, His
Third Person Singular, Feminine: She, Her, Her/Hers
Third Person Singular, Neuter: It, It, Its
First Person Plural: We, Us, Our/Ours
Second Person Plural: [Ye], You, Your/Yours
Third Person Plural: They, Them, Their/Theirs

First, no need to apologize. I am not known for my mastery of the English language. Though how someone from the UK can imagine they can give an American English lessons is beyond me!

Second, I think I used the wrong word also lol

I'm not sure I made myself clear though. What I find ridiculous is the idea that many people read these passages (this generation shall not pass....) as meaning the generation that sees these signs will be the one that sees the signs (or minor variations of that notion). The fact that the preceding verses are heavily laced with "Ye"s and "you" and what have you indicates to me that Jesus was talking to and about those 4 people, and possibly the rest of human kind alive at that time. The idea of reading all those Ye's and You's and then saying that the generation being referred to is some future one, one that will live at least 2000 or so years later, seems ridiculous to me. That make sense, or is it ridiculous?

Many people, by their mid fifties, have mastered multiple languages. I'm still working on my first.