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?

[Black Sheep]

[Replying to post 60 by postroad]

Think about the text a little harder. Have you ruled out the possibility that the conversation recorded was fabricated by the author?

Although my study of Mathew 24 isn't complete, I've probably thought about it and studied it more than most people. Every author records the same event a bit differently because they are different people. To say that the author fabricated this discourse would be to consider the bible as no more than a bunch of nothing. Fiction. I don't read fiction and if you chose to believe Mathew is a bunch of fabricated nonsense have at it. I know what I believe and why I believe it.

Are you really going to stand on the concept that the author was recorded as having Jesus speaking about a multi milleneum future generation having their children dashed to the ground because of the unbelief of first century Jerusalem?

And what's with the weeping. According to scripture Christ's death was a predetermined thing planned from before creation.

You're going to have to explain yourself on this one. I have no clue what you're inferring.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

I'm not interested in any links. I will go by the professionally translated English versions thank you very much

.

The links ARE the resources the 'professional' translators use!

We have several versions of the bible available. One of them is the King James, probably the most trusted version in the world. But according to you those publishers are biased and deliberately trying to mislead us. So are all the others. Why should I believe that your professionals are any different?

Seriously. Give us an English version of the bible that is translated correctly without bias. One that is considered by the majority of professionals AND churches to be accurate and lets use that one. I'm sure that God, if he is real could facilitate this and ensure that it is promoted as the accurate English version of his word... throughout the entire world.

I have no interest in any of your claims about what the true translations are. I also have no interest in doing any research. Give us a standard English version that has it right. In the mean time I will trust the respected and accepted versions like the King James bible.

Then please stop insisting that you know better than the professionals.

I never insisted ONCE that I know better than the pros. I'm as good as they are at it. I just said that I've been doing this for long enough to know the pros are misleading people into believing a whole lot of stuff that will never come to pass. The pros have an ax to grind. They support their theology. I don't. The pros don't use the Lexicons like I do. If they did, they would debunk their own teachings.

And the sources you use? Those people have no axe to grind? They are not biased? Why should any of us accept that?

Paul believed the end times prophecies were being fulfilled

Really? How do you come up with that in the verses you quoted.

I gave you a classic example about Paul insisting that the gospel had been preached to ever every creature under the sun. It either happened as he said or he was deluded.

I don't know WHO< WHY< or WHAT is inspiring you to make such a claim. Like I said. Biased people who don't have a hermeneutic can make the bible say whatever it is they want, and you're proof!

I take it at face value. I don't try to manipulate the words. Just read through Paul's letters. There was such urgency in his words. Quite clearly he believed he was in the end times and that Jesus return was eminent.

It's those that try to make these prophesies stretch for 2000 years that are the ones trying to make the bible say what they want it to. You have proven that to me yet again. All those that try to manipulate the meanings of words in the bible prove this to me time and time again.

I'm not interested in your translations or your interpretations.

I'm not interested in debating anything with you! That being the case, I'll just ignore you from now on. You're not interested, and I'm not interested!

I am interested in debate. I just have no patience for people who are trying to change the meanings of words in our trusted English translations. There is way too much twisting of scripture going on by such people to try to make it fit with their beliefs. If it can't be taken at face value and the English words can't be trusted to mean what it's supposed to mean, then it's worthless.

Give us a version of the bible we can trust. One that is endorsed by the majority of language experts and churches. Until then, talk is cheap.

Seriously, if God was real he would have made sure we had one centuries ago and wouldn't have let us all be suckered in by these professionals that you claim are biased and trying to mislead us.

What I see with people who continually try to re-translate scripture are people who are desperate to hold onto a fantasy the Jesus is yet to return. Every time I see this is convinces me of that even more.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 60 by postroad]

Think about the text a little harder. Have you ruled out the possibility that the conversation recorded was fabricated by the author?

Although my study of Mathew 24 isn't complete, I've probably thought about it and studied it more than most people. Every author records the same event a bit differently because they are different people. To say that the author fabricated this discourse would be to consider the bible as no more than a bunch of nothing. Fiction. I don't read fiction and if you chose to believe Mathew is a bunch of fabricated nonsense have at it. I know what I believe and why I believe it.

Are you really going to stand on the concept that the author was recorded as having Jesus speaking about a multi milleneum future generation having their children dashed to the ground because of the unbelief of first century Jerusalem?

And what's with the weeping. According to scripture Christ's death was a predetermined thing planned from before creation.

You're going to have to explain yourself on this one. I have no clue what you're inferring.

Ok one point at a time. Was this prophecy fulfilled in 70 AD or is it yet to happen?

Luke 19:41-44New International Version (NIV)

41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.�

[postroad]

Will this absolutely literally need to be fulfilled before the second coming of Christ?

Hosea 1:10-11New International Version (NIV)

10 “Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘children of the living God.’ 11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will come together; they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel

[Black Sheep]

[Replying to postroad]

Luke 19:41-44New International Version (NIV)

41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.�

KJV

Luke 19:41  ¶And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42  Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44  And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

The NIV is a bit off on this one. The KJV is more accurate.

That did happen in 70 AD but the words WALL and STONE isn't talking about the Temple area. The 'stones' are the stones of homes where Children and families reside. (and maybe the wall) The word 'wall' mentioned in the NIV, isn't in the interlinear. The wall that the NIV mentions is the wall that surrounded the city of Jerusalem. These aren't the temple stones, and the wall isn't any wall in the Temple area. In fact the word WALL isn't in the interlinear. Take a look...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /luk19.pdf

Jerusalem WAS surrounded by a wall in 70 AD when Titus besieged it, and the passage does resemble the Roman invasion of Jerusalem under Titus. BUT! What does this have to do with Mathew 24? Are you mistakenly associating it with Mathew 24? I can give you a detailed explanation of the passage if you like. I have a feeling I'm going to have to anyway.

[Black Sheep]

[Replying to post 64 by postroad]

I've never studied Hosea 1. But from what I see just from reading it, it appears to mention Israel's future restoration which comes AFTER the return of Christ.

Tell me what you think about the passage! Just what is it you're getting at?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 64 by postroad]

I've never studied Hosea 1. But from what I see just from reading it, it appears to mention Israel's future restoration which comes AFTER the return of Christ.

Tell me what you think about the passage! Just what is it you're getting at?

It seemed that you demanded an absolute literal interpretation regarding the stones of the temple area. Although the temple and its buildings were completely dismantled by the Romans they did leave the retaining wall around the mount intact,

My understanding is that this indicates to you that the 70 Ad destruction of the temple does not meet the standard of fulfilment of the prophecy of Jesus.

Yet you would agree that the sack of Jerusalem's w does meet the standard for fulfilment the 70 AD attack by the Romans although I if they actually dismantled every stone within its walls as the text of the KJV indicates will happen then the Temple also must have dismantled as it was within the city.

You also have no problem with the concept of the population of Israel being in excess of the number of grains of sand in the seashore. This makes me wonder if you are holding different texts to different standards of literal interpretation and by what criteria?

[Ozzy_O]

[Replying to post 48 by postroad]

I believe that those stones belong to the retaining wall at the Temple mount and not the Temple itself. Also if you look closely much of it has been rebuilt at later dates.

If one insist that all these stones must fall then a huge excavation around the mount would need to happen as the wall extends 17 courses of the large blocks underneath ground level.

The stones beneath ground level don't need to fall because they can't!

Pay attention to what Jesus said,

"Matthew 24:2  And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

ALL THESE THINGS included the stones of the Western Wall.

Figure of speech existed in Jesus' day.......He used them regularly. That can mean the temple is destroyed figuratively (yea, a few stones could still be standing)

[Revelations won]

To all respondents,

As I have viewed many of the responses to the OP, one thing is very obvious. That one thing is that the answers to what Jesus said is based on the "private interpretations of what Jesus said". Even scholars can by their deductive reasoning give a thousand different interpretations and still shoot beyond the mark.

Many in their groping for answers may make the simple mistake by failing to understand the obvious.

Is it entirely possible that there could be one or more from Christ's generation who were translated beings who have not tasted of death like Enoch or Elijah for example? How about the apostle John the Revelator?

Does the Bible, for example give any indication what the mission of a translated being might be? Is there any biblical reference giving such an example?

Best regards,
RW

[Checkpoint]

To all respondents,

As I have viewed many of the responses to the OP, one thing is very obvious. That one thing is that the answers to what Jesus said is based on the "private interpretations of what Jesus said". Even scholars can by their deductive reasoning give a thousand different interpretations and still shoot beyond the mark.

Many in their groping for answers may make the simple mistake by failing to understand the obvious.

Is it entirely possible that there could be one or more from Christ's generation who were translated beings who have not tasted of death like Enoch or Elijah for example? How about the apostle John the Revelator?

Does the Bible, for example give any indication what the mission of a translated being might be? Is there any biblical reference giving such an example?

Best regards,
RW

Good observations.

However, let's take hold of what Jesus actually said, and grasp what he meant in its context.

This was about "this generation, not about "a translated being".

Context includes what a word means and how it is being applied.

The word "generation" did not, 2000 years ago, mean what it means to us today.

Failure or refusal to recognize this inevitably results in misunderstanding and misapplication.