I have told you exactly in what sense it is a recent invention. If you can read and understand, then perhaps you can comment on what I actually wrote, instead of repeatedly churning out the same drivel hundreds and hundreds of times in succession.
Rapture - 23rd September 2015
- Thread starter UnrepentantRed
- Start date
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Steve, what a can of worms. "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is." You know you guys could have Christians arguing among themselves rather quickly when you start mentioning things like "Pre-tribulation Rapture", "Post-tribulation Rapture" and Jesus' use of "Generation".
The favorite response to the "this generation" passage is that Jesus was referring to the entire Jewish race when he used "generation" (Greek "genea").
The modern (skeptical) view of the passage is severely flawed in other words.
Since we still have Jews kicking, I suppose the passage and the prophecy is still ongoing, for Christians.
Chris B.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
IOW Jesus was deliberately misleading his hearers.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Mark 4:11-12:
So, yes, Jesus wants a lot of people to NOT understand him, so they won't be saved. He says so himself.
IOW, anyone who'd be swayed by a "but then Jesus was misleading" argument, hasn't read their bible. Which, admittedly, does cover a lot of Xians.
11. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
12. so that,
“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
12. so that,
“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
So, yes, Jesus wants a lot of people to NOT understand him, so they won't be saved. He says so himself.
IOW, anyone who'd be swayed by a "but then Jesus was misleading" argument, hasn't read their bible. Which, admittedly, does cover a lot of Xians.
Poppycock!.... Nothing but pure anti-Semitism.
- Let's assume that this casuistic language chicanery is correct (it is not as I show in point 4 below).
What does that imply? That Jesus will not fulfill his promise until the Jews stop "kicking"?
Is that what Christian casuists want people to understand?
Does Jesus want to have all Jews EXTERMINATED before he completes his promise?
_ - The verse would not make any sense whatsoever if the word generation meant the Jewish people.
Here is the verse
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation (γενεὰ) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.According to this casuistic LANGUAGE CHICANERY, what Jesus is saying is that the Jews will not have yet been exterminated before he completes his promises.
What exactly does that mean? It is utter RUBBISH to say something like that.
It is the equivalent of him saying he will come back before there are no more trees.....but when is that? Tomorrow or 100,000 years from now? So long as there are still trees he would still be awaited… what kind of promise is this?
If we were to take the language legerdemain to be correct then Jesus is not saying he will fulfill his promise when there are no more Jews.... he is saying there will STILL BE JEWS ("kicking" as you call it) when he does.
So this is the most DECEPTIVE thing anyone can say... when is that? This is nothing but meaningless EMPTY hogwash.
_ - If this casuistic word deception is to be taken as true it BACKFIRES UTTERLY upon Jesus and his casuists.
All it does is prove how HEINOUS Jesus is.
Have a look at these verses
Matthew
- 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Is Jesus calling the Jews evil and adulterous until they stop "kicking"? Is that not evil of Jesus? - 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Is Jesus calling the Jews wicked and adulterous until they are exterminated? Is that not wicked of Jesus?
Will Jesus never give a sign to the Jews? - 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
Is Jesus calling the Jews faithless and perverse until they go extinct? Is that not perverse of Jesus?
- 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
- But all this is nothing but an utter DECEPTION. Nothing but casuistry and apologetics trying to acquit Jesus from having made a false promise.
Have a look at this verse
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations (γενεαὶ) from Abraham to David are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ).
I doubt anyone will get away with arguing that the word generations here means "the entire Jewish race"?
Notice the word used γενεαὶ and compare it with the word used in Matthew 24:34 γενεὰ.
Notice the only difference is the ὶ at the end which signifies the PLURAL.
Can anyone argue that generations is not the plural of generation?
In Matthew 1:17 can anyone argue that the word generations does not mean the plural of generation which is the word that means what is described here.
Can anyone find a dictionary entry where the word generation means the entire race of people through time until they eventually stop "kicking"?
So no... generation (γενεὰ) in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 does not mean the Jews... it means
The people born and living at the time Jesus was making the promise, considered as a group
So I am afraid Jesus LIED and there is no language chicanery or legerdemain that will convince any sane person who is not brainwashed that it is otherwise.
But what is really PATHETIC is that even if the casuistry were to be true, it in the end is worse for Jesus because it shows him to have been WORSE THAN A LIAR.... the apologetic trying to acquit Jesus from having lied proves that Jesus was a HEINOUS DESPOTIC MORON!!
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Of course he wasn't. Today's view and definition of the word "generation" is different. It's not a Biblical "slip up", though those uneducated on the subject tend to claim victory in such cases.
Unfortunately, for the Jesus debunkers the claim that "Jesus lied!" is false. The real wisdom does not come from only reading the text, it comes from a detailed study and understanding of the contemporary meaning relayed in the translations of it.
It makes no difference to me since I'm not a religious type. If I was to pick a religion to follow, most likely it'd be Buddhism.
Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Dang, your bias is showing. I can honestly say I've never seen a more energetic attempt to offend the Jesus lovers. And to throw in antisemitism to boot. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the texts of the Bible. I find your presentation lacking, filled with uneducated assumptions and more to do with hate speech rather than any sort of educated debate. Feed your head and we may be able to have a discussion at some future date. Or not.
Chris B.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Actually not just that, but Matthew 1:2-16 actually lists those generations. I will not list it all, but for example Matt 1:2 looks like this:
That's three literal generations in that genealogy of Christ, as summarized in 1:17.
So, you know, we don't even have to look far and wide for what meanings "generation" might have held for Matthew, because in 1:2-16 he actually tells us.
So, you know, bias or not, I'm afraid he's right about that one. I mean, I'll agree that his style could use some improvement (but then mine could too), but it seems to me like where that's what the bible says, that's pretty much it, innit? Regardless of bias, motivation, likes/dislikes, etc, of the reader, that IS what it says.
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
That's three literal generations in that genealogy of Christ, as summarized in 1:17.
So, you know, we don't even have to look far and wide for what meanings "generation" might have held for Matthew, because in 1:2-16 he actually tells us.
So, you know, bias or not, I'm afraid he's right about that one. I mean, I'll agree that his style could use some improvement (but then mine could too), but it seems to me like where that's what the bible says, that's pretty much it, innit? Regardless of bias, motivation, likes/dislikes, etc, of the reader, that IS what it says.
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
That's the common modern error, to assign a single meaning and interpret the passage with that flawed assignment. The word has more than one meaning.
Generation = Race, family and our understanding of "generation" as it applies now. Feel free to check out Strong's Concordance. Easy peasy.
http://biblehub.com/greek/1074.htm
Chris B.
Rubbish!
Have you done that?
I just did it for you in the above post and you started hurling abuses and ad hominems at me.
Can you explain to me what the word generations means in this verse
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations (γενεαὶ) from Abraham to David are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ).
Does it mean "the entire Jewish race"?
And if as you say the "definition of the word generation" for Jesus meant "the entire Jewish race".... then can you explain to me how does that reflect upon Jesus when he calls "the entire Jewish race" from his time until they stop "kicking" as you put it
- Evil
- Wicked
- Adulterous
- Faithless
- Perverse
You can't have it both ways... if as you say, the word "generation" as Jesus understood it meant "the entire Jewish race" then Jesus was making EMPTY promises that cannot mean anything as well as hurling VILE ABUSES (as you did to me) on an entire race of people FOR ALL TIME (or until they stop "kicking" as you called it).
On the other hand if generation means what it means as Matthew used it in 1:17 to signify what we mean by generation in the English language too, then Jesus LIED.
So you pick.... your casuistry proves Jesus to have been a VILE DESPOTIC RACIST.... or you can drop your casuistry and admit that it was false and that in fact Jesus was just a LIAR.
Your choice.... I am not the one who is saying this stuff.... it is the New Testament that if read without blinkers on the mind implies that Jesus is a liar... but with the blinkers it shows that Jesus was a despotic racist.
Yes, I can see that!
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Leumas, if you'll simply check the link in my last post I think you will find it educational.
Chris B.
Chris B.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Believe it or not, I am familiar with it.
HOWEVER, you'll also notice that it doesn't really help our cause, because it's pretty much just by assertion there. Whereas for meanings like "birth" we can find examples of uses like that in Xenophon or Herodotus, or we can find plenty of use in the same way as we talk about "Generation X" (i.e., all people in an age group or evenj all living at the same time), we do not have that support in assuming it to mean "race".
The only uses as "race" are exactly the places where Jesus says this generation shall not pass. And ONLY those places. Not only no other Greek authors ever used it in that sense, but, as shown, even the gospel authors like Matthew don't ever use it in that sense anywhere else.
At any rate, you can't use Strong's concordance to show that it meant "race", because that's circular. The only reason it's in there is because someone decided for theological reasons to translate it that way. And you can't say that their translation is right, and use their translation as support. That's "X => X", or circular reasoning.
And if you were to read his objection, you might understand why that link fails to address the topic anyway.
Last edited:
Yes... very nice.... have you read it?
Here have a look from your link
3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews
Now compare that to what I said
QED!
But let's go even further.... from your link
b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).
Now have a look at what I said
Yet again... QED!
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
I'd also like to add that both the Aramaic-speaking Jews and the Greeks both had better words to express the notion of a race or ethnic group, than relying on people understanding a new meaning of "generation", and both cared a lot less about "race" in the sense that we use today.
In referring to a nation or an ethnic group, like the Jews were, the Greeks would use the word "ethnos". And indeed you can find the word used in that sense in the bible too. Luke has no problem using THAT word in Acts 17:26, for example.
In referring to a nation or an ethnic group, like the Jews were, the Greeks would use the word "ethnos". And indeed you can find the word used in that sense in the bible too. Luke has no problem using THAT word in Acts 17:26, for example.
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
I understand that position. That interpretation is also shared by some that believe the second coming of Christ has already happened. The preterist position. I do not share that opinion or interpretation, but I understand why some feel as they do.
Many passages are metaphoric and I can see why someone of a particular race would have a chip on their shoulder if they viewed the use of "generation" as a negative metaphor but that's simply not the case. The use of "generation" can also simply mean "race" without any negatives applied. The negatives would be in the mind of the reader if they exist IMO.
Chris B.
Having read your link I STAND CORRECTED!!
I am sorry... I apologize.... from the link you gave it looks like you can have it both ways.
According to the link you gave me it looks like Jesus was both
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
It looks as if you intend to rewrite the Bible to better suit your interpretation. We can't do that. The important thing to realize is many words have multiple definitions, whatever the reason for the choice used by the writer, it's what we have to go on. And so each has the freedom to interpret. Some interpret to suit their needs, some try to find the contemporary meaning in the words and yes there are even those who go completely off planet.
If someone tells you to get into your "car" and out of the rain, will you remain standing in the rain because you do not see your "automobile" or "vehicle"? Are not all three considered a car?
Chris B.
Have you read your very own link
b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).
It looks like your opinion is not even shared by the very link you yourself cited in support of your argument unfortunately for your argument.
But have a look here and tell me whose mind would not see these vile abuses as "negative"?
Matthew
Mark
Luke
- 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
- 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
- 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
Mark
- 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
- 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
Luke
- 9:41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.
- 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
MY question isn't whether some connotations are negative, but whether such a translation can be supported.
The 1st century CE isn't some black hole where we have to guess the meaning of words from scratch, based on the Bible alone. There's a metric buttload of stuff written in Greek from that age. If the word meant anything else than "generation", we'd expect to see it used like that in other places too.
And we don't. Not only don't we see that use of "generation" to mean "race" in any other author, but we don't see it anywhere else in the Bible too. And we don't even see a paralel in the mainstream mode of thinking at the time.
And one can't essentially claim that it meant "race" in Matthew 17:17, because it means "race" in Matthew 17:17. Which is what your appeal to Strong is. That's circular. You can't support the idea that that translation is correct in exactly those places, by postulating that it is.
And really what this all is, is not even scholarship or decyphering metaphoric language. It is what I call "playing mad-libs with the words." Like a ton of apologetics, it has nothing to do with how metaphors work, nor with actual linguistics. It's just postulating that you can (or should) read "up" when the text says "down". And for no other reason than someone's vigorous handwaving that it's more palatable when read that way.
Last edited: