This generation shall not pass until

[Checkpoint]

This issue has been discussed over the centuries, and resulted in no agreed answer. Instead at least four possibilities have been proposed. These are:

#1. The generation alive at the time He spoke.
#2. The generation living when He returns.
#3. The nation of Israel, or the Jews as a race.
#4. A particular kind of people.

What is your view on this, and why do you hold it?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

"Quote:

CONCLUSION: Jesus reference to "this generation" had a two-fold fulfillment

#1 The Generation that would be alive in 70CE
#2 The Generation that would be alive at the end of the world system (21st Century)"

Yes, but that is a case of wanting to have your cake and eating it too.

Jesus specifically said "this generation", not "this one now and that one later".

In other words, one generation, not two, a generation that includes both then and at His coming.

That one generation can therefore only be #3. The nation of Israel, or Jews as a race, or #4. A particular kind of people.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]



CONCLUSION: Jesus reference to "this generation" had a two-fold fulfillment

#1 The Generation that would be alive in 70CE
#2 The Generation that would be alive at the end of the world system (21st Century)"

Yes, but that is a case of wanting to have your cake and eating it too.

That's the wonderful thing about the bible, "having your cake and eating it" is the norm. It's a miracle!

Jesus specifically said "this generation", not "this one now and that one later".

He didn't have to, the content of his discourse made it clear - He told his readers to use discernment, this is one reason why. The bible is often writen in a non-linear, symbolically layered fashion that (while it leaves the strict literalist confused) is evident for serious bible students. In scripture "this" can refer to "that", "you" can represent "them", "one" can represent "two" (or if you're a trinitarian "three"), ten can represent 8 million, a day can represent 1000 years... shall I go on?

The point is that from flying dragons to talking snakes, if you attempt to read everything literally you'll not only miss it's deeper meaning, not understand the depth and détails of Jesus' prophecies but you'll be very confused indeed

[OnceConvinced]

This issue has been discussed over the centuries, and resulted in no agreed answer. Instead at least four possibilities have been proposed. These are:

#1. The generation alive at the time He spoke.
#2. The generation living when He returns.
#3. The nation of Israel, or the Jews as a race.
#4. A particular kind of people.

What is your view on this, and why do you hold it?

You have to look earlier in the speech.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

That is the generation that will see the events.

Notice how Jesus used the word "YE". He was talking to the group of people before him. That THEY would see the abomination of desolation. This TOO was obviously expected to occur in the life time of the people he was talking to.

Also I notice you used the word "That". You employed good grammar. But let's be consistent. Jesus too would have used the word "that" for THAT generation. But he used the word "This", obviously referring to the generation of the people he was talking to.

[OnceConvinced]

No, Jesus may have said "this" generation, but he was speaking about the generation alive when he comes again.

Sorry, but that's just blatantly bad grammar. Would the son of God use bad grammar?

How could it possibly be those people that were standing in front of him?

How could it possibly be those people over 2000 years in the future?

Perhaps the prophecies were just false ones?

Or perhaps the preterists were right and Jesus really did return in the 1st century AD. Try talking to them. They'll have some great arguments about how it could have applied to those Jesus was talking to and how the tribulation actually took place in that century.

No. The fulfillment of his prophesies would take place much much later. He foretold a great tribulation the likes of which the world would never see again. That hasn't happened yet. (Matt.24:21) So neither has the prophecy of the generation been fulfilled.

All these things Paul expected to happen in his life time. He talked in his writings as if the tribulation was happening. Paul was absolutely wrong.

The point is it never happened in their life time because it was a FALSE prophecy. It was a FANTASY.

That's the most logical explanation. There will be no tribulation. Likewise there will be no returning of Jesus. The prophecies are all well past their use by date. I bet if Islam had similar prophecies you'd be saying that about them.

[OnceConvinced]

You guys are straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Befuddled.

Personal attack noted and reported.

When Jesus said that "some here will not taste death until you see me in my glory," he almost immediately took Peter, James and John to the mountain where they saw the Transfiguration. That showed Jesus as he would be "coming in glory." So that was fulfilled right then.

You want to reject the whole prophecy of the Last Days, which Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew ch.24. You are free to do that.

You are of course free to ignore basic grammar rules when it comes to the bible, but I will apply them and take scripture at face value. Jesus was not referring to a future generation but the generation of the people before him. If certain prophecies did not take place when they should have, then they are clearly false.

But it's too bad you dismiss it all as "fables" and "fantasy."

It really is the only logical explanation we can make.

The Great Tribulation that Jesus foretold will hit with suddenness, and many people will be caught off-guard, and won't know what's going on, because they weren't interested to find out what Jesus was talking about.

People have been saying things like this for the last 2000 years. Even Paul was adamant the end was eminent. This is like the whole story about the boy who cried wolf. How much more wolf crying should be accepted? 2000 years worth? No way. too much. Wolf, wolf wolf. It can only be fantasy. What other logical explanation can one come to?

If the tribulation did end up happening and Jesus did pop up on the scene, he could not in all good conscience blame the non-believers for not believing. He would have to blame those who continued to cry wolf for 2000 years and who compounded everyone's disbelief.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

In other words you're saying the bible tells you whatever you want it to tell you?

There is no reason why we should take those scriptures figuratively rather than literally. Unless of course one is desperate to turn false prophecies into prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled.

If one applies grammar rules to what they are reading in the bible it should be quite obvious Jesus wasn't referring to a future generation. Even Paul didn't think he was referring to a future generation, so why should we 2000 years down the track?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

Clever, but totally unconvincing.

If you really were one of those "serious Bible students", you would actually realise Jesus used the term "this generation" elsewhere, and put them all together to learn more than an organisation will, or can, tell you.

Anyway, I encourage you to do such a study, and include in it Jesus use of "generation". After doing so, please tell me what He seems to you to be meaning, and who you think He is, and is not, including.

[newnature]

This issue has been discussed over the centuries, and resulted in no agreed answer. Instead at least four possibilities have been proposed. These are:

#1. The generation alive at the time He spoke.
#2. The generation living when He returns.
#3. The nation of Israel, or the Jews as a race.
#4. A particular kind of people.

What is your view on this, and why do you hold it?

The word ‘till’ marking the uncertainty, which was conditional on the repentance of the nation. Note the word ‘till’ in 10:23; 16:28; 23:39 what is certain with what is uncertain?

John the Baptizer came in connection with Yahweh’s earthly nation Israel and in accordance with an offer to confess their failure under the law contract in order to gain their promised land. That confession itself would be considered a fruit of righteousness in the eyes of Yahweh.


Leviticus 26, beginning with verse 40, is the confession Israel would be called upon to make. Israel would also have to accept the remainder of her punishment, that failure under the law contract would call for and that would be the seven year tribulation. When John the Baptizer came along, had anything new begun? He simply called upon Israel to change their minds about their righteousness.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by OnceConvinced]

You wrote:

"If one applies grammar rules to what they are reading in the bible it should be quite obvious Jesus wasn't referring to a future generation".

We need more than just grammar rules. In this case we need to get right the meanings intended of the words "this" and "generation" by taking into account their usage by Jesus elsewhere, both together and separately.

What we find may surprise us!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

You claimed: In scripture "this" can refer to "that".

Please give examples.