Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
>2000 years later
>that generation has long passed
>the world has not come to an end
>Jesus has not returned
Ok so I get that Orthodox and specially Catholics only pay lip service to the bible anyway, so who cares what the bible says. But what about protestants and young earth creationists who supposedly take the bible literally? How do they explain this and other failed prophecies in the bible away? Because they claim that when the bible says that the world was created in seven days we are supposed to understand that as literally meaning 24-hour terrestrial days, because, come on, if God had meant something else he would have said it right? But when Jesus says he will be back soon before that generation passes away and when Paul says that "ye shall not all sleep" (that is not everyone he was adressing would have died) before Jesus returned, they all of a sudden go full Catholic and it all becomes RICH SYMBOLISM.
Explain yourselves.
>>994521
>Implying Christians read the Bible.
Have you ever looked down at one of those lists about all the old testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled? Half of them are in psalms, a non-prophetic work, and a lot of the rest aren't messianic in any way, shape, or form, like God's pronouncement to Eve that her descendents will war endlessly with the snake.
If they could read the Bible, they probably wouldn't be Christians.
>>994529
This. It's like the quickest cure for soemone being a muslim is to make them read the Koran, Christians have this idea about the Bible as this special and obviously accurate book, actually reading it would be a massive test of their faith,
>>994529
This drive me mad. I've gone through Matthew and looked up the scriptural sources to all the fullfilled prophecies and in my head I was screaming the whole time "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?!" by far my favorite is the fullfilled prophecy of Judas's death. the prophecy it fullfilled isn't even in the bible (well technically it is). It's a combination of a non-prophecy in Jeremiah where he buys land and a prophecy in Zechariah.
>>994552
*drove
>>994552
It's almost as if the guy(s) who wrote the gospels was familiar with the prophetical writings and tried his best (althought ultimately doing a bad job at it) to fit every messianic and pseudo-messianic prophecy into the narrative, so as to make it sound like Jesus was fulfilling them, but when it came down to make his own prophecies he failed miserably, not getting a single one right.
Where you at Christfags? Doesn't the bible command you to defend your faith?
>>994728
Great post! I can tell you sincerely want a debate.
>>994736
or argument. both are fine senpai
>>994521
I dunno. I guess they were just translated wrong.
>>994728
I'm sad. at this point Fundie anon feels like an old nutty friend. where are you buddy? I miss your ad hominims and Kent Hovind links
i don't get it. are prophecies something jesus said, or something his followers said that he said? never read the bible. enlighten me.
Could we please get a humanities board without all the religious bullshit?
>>994759
haha
>>994758
well he did make prophecies but we were mainly talking about the prophecies from the Old Testement that the gospel writers claimed that Jesus fullfilled during his life
>>994759
nice joke anon
>>994769
ah i see. that seems impossible to verify, or check. why did he confide in them and ask them to write things down?
>>994769
>2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That is all scripture is the infallible word of God and should one iota is wrong it means that either God is wrong or that the whole thing is a sham.
>>994814
but can't anyone claim to be inspired by god? oh wait, that's how evangelicals make their boatloads of money
>>994521
The explanation I remember hearing as a kid was that the translation of "generation" is as close as you can get to whatever the original word was, but meant something more along the lines this era of people. So this "era" means all the post-Christ sinners and saved. And none of the Christians Paul was addressing died, since they were Christian and that gives you eternal life. Of course, that means that he was saying "not all the people who live between right now and the return will die before the return" which doesn't actually communicate any information, but there you go.
Where are all the Sola scriptura, biblical literallists, sola fide protestants that crowd the Catholic / orthodox threads?
Did they suddenly dissappear? Did the rapture just happen?
>>994814
The same goes to the Quran btw. Abrahamites must be regreting they made such a bold claim now huh? As their infallible scriptures have been proved wrong before every thinking person. Wait, what you're saying? The majority of people are actually retarded sheep and these two are still major world religions with millions of followers killing and dying in their name? Well fuck this gay earth.
>>994521
>they all of a sudden go full Catholic and it all becomes RICH SYMBOLISM.
Protestants also believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he told the parables and did the whole Last Supper thing, whereas Catholic and Orthodox think that in particular was literal. It's not as simple as protestant = literal, Catholic/Orthodox = symbolic.
>>994848
well most people don't read the scriptures, let alone criticisms of them
>all protestants are literalists
Nice meme retard. Literalists are only those evangelicals in the US.
>>994521
Yeah, there are alot of fallacies and double meanings. I'm surprised people who read it don't give up on it
I have a mate dating this girl a while back who is a religious nut. He was scared to go to a bible study thing alone so he decided to bring me (wrong person to bring IMO, but helping another friend). Anyway i got into an argument with the pastor about homosexuality, ISIS and other things. He contended that these people needed to be converted when I fired back with the single argument that Jesus said to take care of Gentiles and Love Thy Neighbour, which ultimate contradicts his arguments. Also he argued that we need a grand church head of state, but I said Jesus was also against that and he would hate what the medieval/modern church has become.
I don't go back there anymore nor does my mate. And don't get me started on that whole sex before marriage bullshit
>>994543
>>994552
what about the prisoner finding jesus meme?
>>994958
Imagining the whole scene made me cringe so much. Anon please cure your autism.
Interesting thread.
That is a good attack on biblical literalism and divine inspiration, the lack of answers in the thread is a proof of this attack's value.
There a possible answer though, and it was already proposed by one anon: the word "generation" in Matthew having actually a broader meaning.
Let's see what the text actually says:
"αμην λεγω υμιν οτι ου μη παρελθῃ η γενεα αυτη εως παντα ταυτα γενηται"
Word by word: "Amen I tell you that shall not pass this generation until all this things happen"
The word translated as generation is γενεα, "genea". I we look up this word in LS greek dictionary, indeed we'll see it has a lot of meaning depending of the author.
So to see the actual meaning in Matthew, obviously we have to see the word genea used by Matthew in other places. And in the begging of his book we find this:
Mth. 1:17
Πασαι ουν αι *γενεαι* απο Αβρααμ εως Δαυειδ *γενεαι* δεkατεσσαρες...
"Thus all the *generations* from Abraham to David are fourteen *generations*"...
If you have read the bible, you know Matthew here is doing Jesus' genealogy. And he call "generation" to each son who becomes a father, and so on.
So, sorry guys, but the Greek text support that the bible contains here a failed prophecy.
>>994985
i fucking know i was retarded to go and open my mouth, it was a few years back and i forgot details.
>>994991
Ouch.
>>994991
Sorry for my bad English by the way
>>994991
thanks for that. are you fluent in greek?
>>995098
I'm not sure what you want. He already referred to me and I thought I made it pretty clear it was something I just heard as a kid. I'm not even Christian anymore.
It's amusing to see so many people patting themselves on the back for 'debunking' the Gospel as if the controversy surrounding Matthew 24 is some revolutionary critique that invalidates the past 2000 years of church history.
Like every criticism against Christianity, this issue is neither new nor without explanation. This website gives a nice survey of serveral approaches for understanding Matthew 24:
http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm
However I'm sure these interpretations will be dismissed out of hand by many who aren't actually interested in trying to understand what Jesus has to say but instead are merely looking for an occasion to play 'gotcha' and bask in their own euphoria.
>>994521
The world of Nero came to an end with his death, and so too the Roman empire with time.
Christianity stopped being persecuted more or less for 200 years, only to return as the dominant religion of the West for the next 1700 years
>>995460
what does this have to do with this thread?
>>995469
I just solved his dumb fuck rhetorical question by proving him wrong. Within a generation of Jesus' crucifixion, the emblem of the material world and icon of persecution against early Christians, the Roman Emperor Nero, was dead, and Christ returned to the hearts of men. Or do those not count because I'm not construing the bible literally?
>>994991
>And he call "generation" to each son who becomes a father, and so on.
I'm confused. What does that mean? Jesus has descendants?
>>995428
What is Occam's Razor? So many hair-splitting and word twisting to explain away a failed prophecy by a supposed unfallible scripture. It was an amuzing read and a sort of anthropological study of how far one is willing to go to defend their intimate worldviews from the attacks of reality.
>>995487
So basically muh rich metaphorical symbolism. Get it.
>>995487
Nero wasn't even emperor during Jesus' time. He wasn't even born yet. Are you implying that Jesus made a vague prophecy toward a person that didn't exist in his lifetime and that died nearly 2 generations after?
>>995487
welcome back fundie-anon. what prophecy does the death of Nero fullfill? I don't remember a verse about the "emblem of the material world"'s death in the passage that OP was talking about. and what does this have to do eith Jesus returning to people's hearts? this seems to be a rather unfounded interpretation of the second coming, especially because it implies that Jesus wasn't in christians' hearts before Nero died
>>995487
>I just solved his dumb fuck rhetorical question by proving him wrong
>Y-you bedoras are the dummies for not getting that the passage doesn't actually mean what is says but in fact means something completely different and arbitrarily defined.
Check mate adeists!
Oh you're so easy XDD
>>995500
It means his ancestors. Fourteen generations between Abraham and David means Abraham had a son, which had another son, which had another, and so on fourteen times until David was born. Then twenty eight "genea" more until Jesus was born.
When Jesus says that "this genea" will not pass until his prophecy is fulfilled, it means (literally) that said prophecy will happen before all adult people alive by Jesus' time die.
>>995532
also that number of generations in Jesus's genealogy in Matthew is wrong. the writer skipped a few people to get 14 twice
>>994958
>makes a single Apostle the leader and "rock" of his Church.
>hurr Jesus hated church just like me XD
>>995566
Nice triple dubs.
>>995532
so it's 16?
>>994521
Doesn't the gospels have Jesus say no one, not even he knows when the Apocalypse will come?
It's the famous "it'll come like a thief in the night" quote.
>>995595
yeah, he said no one knows a specific date. but in this passage he gave a general time frame
>>995595
He said he didn't even know exactly when, only The Father did, but it would definitely be before the generation was over.
Constantine, the tripfag, used to say that he was referring to the destruction of the temple and that in fact it proved that scripture was infallible.
But you know,
>Constantine
>>994521
I just read through that whole passage and it seems that he was not talking about the second coming. Rather, it looked like he mentioned his own sacrifice and the destruction of the temple.
But, I'm no scholar, I'm sure the church has a better explanation
>>995595
He said that only the Father knows, which is a common thing to say among ancient hebrews.
A wedding ceremony, though everyone involved knew when it was going to happen, was to be officially anounced by the father of the groom when everything was prepared.
>>995659
doubtful. He already showed that he knew he would be risen in 3 days when he mentioned the sign of Noah: dead for 3 days. there would be no reason for him to be so vague about it to anytime within that generation if he had already told them that he would rise in 3 days.
Sorry guys. I sort of pulled a half-life 3 back there. The original plan was to have the end of the world in the life time of Jesus's followers. However we severely underestimated how much space we would need in heaven for everyone. Than me and the rest of the trinity decided that we should extend salvation not to just the one's currently alive but to everyone that had every died.
This means we had to push the project back indefinitely while we made more room. The logistics problems for housing several billion souls for all eternity is really complicated which is why we stopped giving regular updates. We have slashed our miracle and prophet departments to put more energy into the Heaven project.
Christianity has come along way since we started. Even I didn't expect it to become a world-wide phenomena. While we are happy at our product's success the growth rate for new Christians is currently faster than the rate at which we are making new seats in heaven. Because of this we currently have no plans to open up heaven in the foreseeable future. Rest assured there is currently no plan to make heaven harder to get into, you still enter entirely by faith alone. We are fully committed to making sure the trillions of souls get the product they are expecting. We ask that you continue to be patient while we try to think of a solution.
>>995696
>tfw no refunds
>>994521
Considering how Christians believe that through Jesus we can achieve eternal life, and as such everyone in heaven is very much alive in that regard, one could argue its reffering to the fact this generation (that is, Christianity, all spiritual siblings of Jesus) won't spiritually die.
>>995738
Ah, I see. So once Jesus comes back, the generation will pass and everyone dies.
To that one: we are still the same generation, with the same faults
>>994827
I have this thing called a job that requires me to be places during the day
>>995767
>I have this thing called a job
Wow what a loser!
>>995758
Ending doesn't mean death. It can also entail "this spiritual generation of redeemed sinners brought into inherent ends of the Kingdom of Heaven shall not be completed until this has all happened, and by then, I shall come make raise the dead, and Heaven and Earth shall become one perfect Kingdom unified perfectly for all of eternity."
>>995696
Heaven PR.
>>994991
>The word translated as generation is γενεα, "genea". I we look up this word in LS greek dictionary, indeed we'll see it has a lot of meaning depending of the author.
>So to see the actual meaning in Matthew, obviously we have to see the word genea used by Matthew in other places.
Fallacious inference. It is probable that he would not use the word with another meaning in mind than how he did at another time, but you can't demonstrate that that absolutely is the meaning meant here from a single example elsewhere. You could maybe build an inductive case by examining every other instance the word is used - but even that can't grant you a necessary truth.
don't know if this has been pointed out already, haven't read the whole thread yet, but:
>and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. - Matthew 2:23
this is a reference to Judges 13:5 and the word "Nazarite" and yet a Nazarite is not someone from Nazareth.
check this video and go to 9:35 :
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
he explains it better then i do.
>>994521
As the human race was granted earth, the only thing they done so far was take a huge metaphorical dump on it. So I suppose God almighty turned to another hobby. And oh, the fucking muslims fault.
>>994521
CHRISTKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH!
>>995696
I'll never back another apocalyptic Hebrew preacher ever again
Kickstarter not even once
>>994521
>what is a metaphor
>>994521
The greek word for "generation" here (and it's used across text-types) can also mean "race" or "family".
>http://biblehub.com/greek/1074.htm
In this, it could easily mean that
>jews will not go extinct (christ was speaking to jews)
>the church will not go extinct (christ was speaking to the church)
>the human race will not go extinct (christ was speaking to humans).
The church existing until his return seems most likely given the context, and other things Jesus has said elsewhere (gates of hell will not prevail, etc etc).
Christcucks getting BTFO left and right ITT.
So this is what christcuckoldry has come down to? Oh how the mighty have fallen! From
>" The truth will set you free!", "The church has the fullness of truth!", etc.
To
>"Y-you see guys, this word can actually be subverted from its normal and common-sense reading, found in every other passage of the same book, to mean a number of different things that don't conflict with my worldview, despite every evidence to the contrary!"
Oh the paucity and mendacity of a Christian holy liar. It almost makes me feel sorry for them. You have believed in a lie all this time and your savior will never return. Except I don't because you love lies. Keep protecting your feelings from reality, just do so quietly and don't pretend to be morally superior to anyone else.
>>995882
Yes, it is not a demonstration but anot induction based on statistics (like almost everything we "know").
So genea meaning the time between a person is born, has a child and dies, is the most probable case in Matthew, and so ascribing to that interpretation is the safe thing to do.
Unless, of course, you show us a third case in which Matthew uses the word genea, but with a different meaning.
Can you do that?
>>996774
*but an induction
>>994521
>"ye shall not all sleep" (that is not everyone he was adressing would have died)
no he means LITERALLY SLEEP not METAPHORICALLY
>ye
obviously not a protestant bible
>>996783
>obviously not a protestant bible
If christkuks were really interested in the actual meaning of the new testament instead of which version of the bible to use, they would be learning Greek.
>>996783
You just got yourself into more trouble. So the people Paul was talking to, they wouldn't even so much as go to sleep that night and the new heaven and the new earth would come. Alright.
>>996827
so there is metaphor in the bible? hmm
>>996798
there are a few versions that approach translating the bible academically, getting it as close to the original meaning as possible
>>995696
Damn you Yahweh.
>>996831
What are you trying to say?
> prophecies aren't real
> bible aren't literal
Clearly Christianity is some kind of metaphor for atheism being true.
>>996849
I think he's managed to confuse himself tbqh.
>>996774
I myself looked up for more geneas in Matthew and most of the time it refers to a group of people living in a given period of time.
No metaphoric "Christians live forever" sense in sight. Examples: 12:39, 16:4.
>>996849
isn't it obvious? it is dishonest to translate one term literally and another metaphorically, saying the literal translation doesn't make sense when it's generally taken by scholars to be translated metaphorically
>>996869
Dude people ITT have been showing what the word genea means in the original Greek and how it is used in the context of the text. It is Christians that think they get to pick and chose which passages have a literal meaning and which one don't. And in this case it is clear that generation means the life-spam of the people living at that time.
>>996388
Did you read the whole thing you linked? They explicitly quote Matthew 24:34 as an example of genea meaning the multitude of humans living at the same given time. It's literally the first example of this meaning that they quote.
>>996890
>It is Christians that think they get to pick and chose which passages have a literal meaning and which one don't.
that's clearly what happened in OP though and i doubt he is a christian
>>996869
The New Testament predicts the apocalypse within the lifetime of the followers of the original followers of Jesus multiple times and using multiple different turns of phrase and no they are not considered by scholars to just be metaphor.
Trying to argue "hurr Paul didn't mean death when it said sleep" is weak as fuck.
>>996900
Do you have a disability or something? Which words do you think should be taken literally and which ones metaphorically, and say it clearly with proper sentence structure and punctuation and not with lazy one-phrase word strings.
>>996902
>Trying to argue "hurr Paul didn't mean death when it said sleep" is weak as fuck.
it isn't really. the point is to show that the OP argument was poorly thought out because he hasn't accounted for his own metaphorical interpretations. i don't know why you're defending this meme understanding of the bible
>>996926
it's not about what i think, it's about OP being consistent
>>996941
>Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Literal or metaphor? This is what is being discussed ITT.
>>996940
Why wouldn't we be able to understand the bible?
>>996950
again, not my point
>>997004
i've stated it a couple of times now so maybe you just can't read
>>996835
>original meaning
There really aren't. You have to compare and contrast versions while consulting the greek to be able to see where one or the next fucks it up.
Acts 1:15 points this out pretty well in most modern translations.
>t this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
NASB (often considered a gold standard in english "scholarly" translations).
>In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said,
NRSV (again, considered a good "scholarly" translation, and bears the imprimatur, as well as being official in most mainline churches)
>In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)
NIV (the bible for plebs, but still based on the nestle-aland greek as the above)
>And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
KJV
The greek for "brothers/disciples/believers" is "adelphoi" -- lit. Brothers. Everything but NASB fucks this up.
The greek for "number of persons/names" is "ochlos onomaton" -- lit. "number of names". Everyone save for KJV fails here, even the golden scholarly posterboy of NASB.
The point: no one wraps up the greek perfectally. You must know greek to see the original text. And this is before we even get into weird shit like hapax legomena.
>>997027
original meaning doesn't mean literal word-for-word translation
>>997011
That if someone uses a metaphor in a sentence you are being inconsistent if you don't interpret everything as a metaphor, really? If someone posted a hot chick in this thread and I said "that girl is a hot as the sun" would you really have that much problem working out which of my words was an obvious metaphor and which wasn't? That's basic language comprehension and your point is ridiculous.
Or are you trying to say that the bible itself is gibberish and we can't even understand the words in it? Because if you are a Christian that seems either silly, as it would apply to everything in the bible and we might as well just throw the whole thing away or YOU are being deliberately inconsistent and trying to make out we just can't understand the words when someone points out they say something you don't like.
>>997037
then you're relying on the translator's opinion.
>>997039
no the inconsistency comes from the fact that he didn't even seem to think twice about it. but that is not the end of my point. my point was to cast doubt -- in his tirade it is not obvious whether he interpreted everything correctly and it would be foolish to assume he did. like focusing on the use of the word 'generation' is a poor point in itself for talking about 'prophecies' not being fufilled. how often did he misinterpret other words that colour the meaning of 'generation' in the contexts they are given, if he even read the bible at all?
are you really convinced by this?
>if God had meant something else he would have said it right?
also i'm not christian so you may as well stop trying to approach the argument from that direction. i'm not here to jump into the argument as an excuse for more atheist v christian shitposting.
>>997044
which is why i say 'as close as possible'
>>997060
There's absolutely no doubt that the New Testament says multiple different times in multiple different ways that the apocalypse is imminent and will happen in the lifetime of Jesus' followers.
There's no inconsistency being shown by anyone here and your entire point that we can't understand it or that we can't grasp someone using a metaphor like "sleep" for death or that we can't understand the word "generation" is beyond weak.
>>997063
You run into problems with this line of reasoning when you consider how hapax legomena are translated...especially when they're in verses that are critical for the establishment of a doctrine.
>>997071
there is doubt though and there are uses of 'generation' that don't explicitly refer to the people alive during that time
and a generation had passed before the gospels were even written, most of it had passed before paul was even converted.
but regardless of how you've approached the argument personally, you're being dishonest if you found OP convincing
>>997072
then you look at cultural context
>>997060
You must be getting tired of dodging and running in circles. The question is: "is generation to be taken literally in the relevant passage?" I yes then the bible got it wrong and Christianity is a false religion. If no than that is a reading not corroborated by the scripture itself and you're interpreting it to mean whatever you wish, which shows bad faith on the part o Christian apologists, but that is a whole different matter.
>>997107
i'm not looking at the question i'm being critical of OP's lack of neutrality in how he has asked the question. it's a legitimate position i can take in the argument and it's not 'dodging' or 'running in circles'
>Matthew 16:28 I promise you that some of those standing here will not die before they see the Son of Man coming with his kingdom.
He really couldn't be any more clearer.
>>997087
>there is doubt though
Nope.
>“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
CS Lewis, top Christian apologist of the 20th Century.
Basically, the Christian views on Matt 24:34 are as follows:
>Apologist approach:
"It is really embarrassing that Matt 24:34 exists, and therefore this makes the bible more likely to be entirely true!"
>Preterists:
"Jesus' second coming happened in 70 AD, nothing to see here"
>Partial Preterists:
"Jesus' second coming happened in 70 AD, BUT HE'S GONNA COME AGAIN GUIS, I PROMISE"
The other arguments boil down to attacking individual words and the grammatical mood of Matt 24:34. For example, you can debate what "Generation" means, or what "all these things" meant. In general they're just rhetorical backflips mixed with definition mining in ancient Greek dictionaries.
Ultimately, the apologist approach is literally as dumb as nails, but it's the most convincing of all the other arguments.
>>997111
There's no lack of neutrality. You're just running round trying to cast doubt on something that is beyond any doubt.
>“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“
Matthew 16:27, 28
>You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 26:64
>>997184
>Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom
B-but how do you know that taste here is not used literally? As in taste the flavor of foods. How do you know that "death" doesn't mean some kind of food in some obscure Greek dictionary? You can't affirm that "death" is always used in the sense of dying.
Therefore you're inconsistent.
Therefore we will never know.
Therefore Christianity is correct.
Atheists BTFO!!1
>>997201
Kek, you're just humiliating yourself at this point.
>When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:23
As already pointed out the NT says this multiple times, in multiple ways.
>>997201
Congratulations. You are now king of bible study.
May many deviled eggs and chaste Christian girls come to you, but only on Wednesday nights, 7-10pm.
>>995696
For God's sake God, billions of people are still worshipping other faiths. Has the project to convert these ppl or give them an honest chance been totally abandoned because of lack of housing space?
>>995696
But the logistic problem is just getting worse and worse as time goes on? I thought you were omniscient, God.
>>997266
>Can God choose to withold information from his Jesus self?
Yes, when it's convenient for christians.
>>997266
I know it's almost as if the trinity was a latter concoction not supported by the texts and not recognized by the majority of the church before the Nycene coup. But of course that's not what happened.
Have faith brother!
>>997266
So now you get into people arguing about exactly what the trinity is and the difference between Substance and Essence and all that. Personally I think it seems easier to pick one of the numerous early churches /"heresies" that actually solved the problem but obviously Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants aren't big fans of that solution.
>>997326
Hmm. That's what bothers me is if everyone is doing it wrong, one would think that there would be another prophet or some sort of intervention to correct these things, but seemingly there have been no miracles or direct intervention that we can observe for several hundreds of years. I mean damn, would it be too much to ask for some course correction?
>>997348
>one would think that there would be another prophet or some sort of intervention to correct these things
Theoretically, that did happen with Islam, Mormonism and the Bahai faith, where a prophet came and explained everyone was doing Abrahamic monotheism wrong, then tried to fix it. You could even interpret Christianity as that to older forms of Judaism. But the problem becomes obvious once you've seen it in action.
ITT: people honestly trying to argue with Christians.
Christianity is cult. They don't care the least about the truth. Don't believe me? Research presuppositionalism.
Whe you're arguing with a normal person, both of you ashare the same presuppositions of rationality and good will. You assume that both of you are willing to find the truth and to concede if proven wrong.
Not with Christians though. They assume that there can be no common ground between a believer and a non-believer, and that every evidence contrary to their view is a priori wrong. In other words, they are insane. It's really a bolshevik-type mentality where the end goal is to ignore every contrary opinion when in a position of weakness, and suppress it when in a position of strenght.
You were right all along, Voltaire, and doubted you. We live in a freer and better world because of the likes of you. So many years of my life have I dedicated to this death cult. But no more. Eat shit Christians.
>>994521
This verse is fulfilled if you consider Titus Flavius Vespasianus as the Son of Man. Galilee was reduced, Jerusalem encircled by a wall, the city and its Temple completely destroyed. Apocalypse doesn't mean the end of the world but revealing what's hidden, concealed. It's an old trope the priests have used to keep the plebs in line, pacifying them with fear.
Christianity is a nearly two thousand years old joke being played on the Christians by the Romans. Protestants are even more ridiculous as they rejected the pranksters but not the joke.
>>997373
I know what you mean. I've had this discussion with Christians before, their ability to not read what is in front of them or wish it away with poor excuses is astonishing.
This is actually shown to be a consistent thing with doomsday cults, many of the kookier modern branches of Christianity, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, are based on cults that made exact apocalypse predictions that turned out to be false.
>>997266
trinitarian doctrine espouses that the son and father are only the same in that they poses the same ousia. They are distinct hypostases, though.
In this, although most of us will deny it, we're essentially tritheists who claim 3 gods who are essentially "the same species".
Oneness only occurs in this when you apply aristotelian logic to the question of what ousia entails (esp. looking at how Final Cause plays into things), and how god's characteristics make him unique, -or- if you apply platonic logic to the fact that the ousia of god is a form and that the forms are real rather than abstractions.
But to say that the son IS the father is incorrect -- it's modalism, and is rejected specifically because of stuff like the pic in >>997300
>>994814
>>994521
>>994991
These lines of inquiry are fatally flawed, and inherently unconvincing and befuddled.
If we take all of Scripture for what it is says- keeping focus on-- All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
We have to ask ourselves at the outset, am I looking at the accounts of a false doctrine, or a true doctrine? If you are not at least somewhat predisposed to constructing a true doctrine from the bible, then obviously a text which is meant to carry the weight and depth of an entire understanding about every conceivable worthy consideration, will be regarded as shallow and lacking. But don't blame the text, as the text even also includes the caveat:
2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
What you guys are doing is very similar to an analogy of finding a post-grad scientific text filled with jargon, and without recourse to a technical dictionary, proclaim that the text is obviously a fraudulent piece of self-proclaimed knowledge.
Now the Bible doesn't come with a dictionary, the dictionary of the bible is the doctrine of Christ, and it cannot be obtained by anything other than applying real and genuine human intelligence that hears the life explained in the wording of the bible. Because it even says, the spirit is life, the spirit is called many things, the one true spirit, the spirit of truth, the discerning spirit, the Holy spirit. Picking it into pieces of inconsistency is a feeble and pretentious exercise, if you can't or won't try to make sense of its entirety then obviously the Scripture is closed to you.
Your arguments should work well against what I call: "so called Christians", and I am glad to see their scarce presence in this thread.
>>997587
That statement's not even wrong. It is the very essence of wrong. Your bizarre, ridiculous, ludicrous post has ascended into a whole new dimension of pure wrongness beyond human comprehension.
That post is like pure idiocy. If you just took all of the imbecility and ignorance and foolishness and delusion this Earth has to offer and boiled it, for hours and hours, in a petri dish, and then just scraped out the pure stupidity with a diamond sharp blade, then studied it under the most powerful microscope ever developed maybe then we could examine how idiotic your post was. And I am sure we would all be utterly astonished by the new levels of stupidity your post had reached.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely brainless things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it.
I award you no points, and may Skyman have mercy on your broken soul.
>“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
CS Lewis, top Christian apologist of the 20th Century.
So, what IS the point of this thread then? To prove that the Bible has inconsistencies? To prove that the Bible can't stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Or is it just another "hurr durr I fling shit at you" from smug fedoras and christcucks?
>>995696
>please understand
>>997629
according to my picture, which one are you?
I think my description of pretentious is the best of any that might offered.
I'm not sorry I made you cry.
By the way, well done on relying a literal meanings for every spiritual entity your quote included... and good luck with the rest of your "intellectual" shitposting.
>>997629
>CS Lewis, top Christian apologist of the 20th Century.
this has to be an atheist false flag
>>997695
>according to my picture, which one are you?
Between one and two I explicitly refuted your central point and used a citation, if you bothered to read it.
I guess you didn't.
As to the rest it was fair game to point out your entire post was rambling incoherent nonsense.
>>997718
Christianity Today voted his works the best works of the 20th C in 2000.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/april24/5.92.html
>>998472
So, who has Scientilogy voted top writer recently?
>captain of the year all years
>asking "unbiased" faithpeople on anything
>>997587
>accept the bible as truth and ignore any logical hiccups and failed prophecies
Ah, so that's how it makes sense.
>>995696
Bravo.
>>998597
You knew Tolkien was Catholic, right?
>>998597
Eru Iluvatar is basically Yahweh. It's rumored that Tolkien was never quite sure if the orcs were wholly evil or not because that would imply that something that is pure good, Iluvatar, would be capable or willing to create true evil. Creating an unsettling parallel with Tolkien's real faith. Ultimately he never resolved the issue.
>decide to read the bible
>get to Matthew 1:23
>Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us
>mfw over two thousand years have passed since then and nobody has ever called Jesus "Emmanuel"
>>997587
>If you are not at least somewhat predisposed to constructing a true doctrine from the bible, then obviously it will be regarded as shallow and lacking
Lol. Not sure if extremely subtle trolling or Zika virus. This has got to be the worst christian diatribe I have ever read on the internet and that's saying a lot.
>>998728
>Immanuel Kant is he
A generation has yet to pass. We are still living in the times of Christ. The Roman Empire never ended. The past two thousand years of history are an illusion created by Satan to test the faithful. We are literally living in the matrix. The only thing which can free you from this black iron prison is anamnesis, literally: the forgetting of forgetting. Haven't you ever felt like there was something missing in your life? Something important that you had forgotten? Somethig gnawing at the back of your mind? Just remember... Hear these words and remember.
>>998785
"concentrate intensely on any feeling of paranoia and unease you might have,
get into an emotionally upset state,
now base your worldview entirely on that state"
Sure got religious in here..
>>998728
Jesus is Emmanuel, just like how you are presumably American.
>>998829
Jesus was a Nazarene.
>>998829
but Emmanuel isn't a nationality or title, it's a name
>>998728
immanuel simply means "god with us".
most christians call christ god...who was indeed with us on earth.
>>997695
being contradicted by someone I don't agree with does not illustrate an internal inconsistency on my part, so there is no way I've been refuted.
You are an idiot.
>>998738
ditto.
Still unchallenged, the end.
Just because you bother to string a sentence together that sounds disparaging, doesn't mean you've accomplished anything.
In fact my thesis covers your feeble attempts at engaged discourse, and even describes them appropriately. Please evolve already, philosophical infancy is not fun to address, I'm sorry your stupidity follows the Dawkins-esque strategies of critique that don't work: screaming hearsay is all people such as yourselves are left with. It's funny how the stupefied have more in common with each other than you can bear to face, just different factions of the same ideological claims for a supreme authority which are stylistically indistinguishable. Please tell me again how I dare to avoid falling prey to petty systems of sophistry, so that you are only left insinuating error without making any substantiated claims of my supposed error. Whatever did I say, that by NECCESSARY implication makes my reasoning absurd? (please dont actually try to answer this challenge, because picking through your specious retorts will just be a waste of both our times, because you are obviously to stupid to respect or identify what even a fucking REFUTATION is).
Fucking internet group-think dweebs, too in love with a bandwagon-cult of nonthink to even make a go at making their case based on actual REASONING, good luck with that, hope this isn't even your final form already.
>>998907
Wow your suffering is so deep, the infidels just don't learn.
Martyr yourself.
>>999244
>implying I'm not a Martyr
your emotional argument helps fuel me though, its so easy to identify it as the sigh of the futile fable laden cynic.
You know integrity is a thing, and philosophical skepticism is renouncable, if your capable of having your intelligence quickened.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
But thanks for confirming my judgement with your faithfully made expression of your own present condition. And good luck with that fabled form of fatalism you are so evidently locked into, its a far too stupid narrative for me to contend with any further.
--
I think I have sampled enough of the limits of this forum's powers of exchange over the internet- it really is too painful to watch people try to produce cheap ways of perpetuating their feeble edifices of world view to which their false ego depends for exerting its brand of a authorized dominion: dishonestly exerted through the means of unclear substantiations and diffuse reasoning shrouded in cheap rhetoric.
Intellectual cowards, commence further your revelings beyond my perusal, I bid you all, Good luck with those things.
>>999817
Lol and I thought you were being serious for a second there. Good job.
>>995526
>what is symbolism
18+
>>1000574
Oh please. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the passages quoted in this thread are just symbolism.
>>995696
>faith alone
>>994543
It works in a allegorical sense if that's how you choose to interpret it.
But I'd agree that literal translation is fucking dumb.
>bible as literature master race reporting in
>>1000635
What exactly is a claim that you are about to bring about the apocalypse an allegory of?
>>1000655
Define "apocalypse".
You can easily interpret this as a metaphorical argument for the change in inner humanity.
The generation itself being the presence of God in the Christian community.
>>1000673
>Define "apocalypse".
Okay.
>Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
>But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Is that a good enough description?
>You can easily interpret this as a metaphorical argument for the change in inner humanity.
>The generation itself being the presence of God in the Christian community.
Laughable. The only way you could 'easily' interpret it that way is by a ridiculous act of self-deception.
>>1000686
Right. But you're looking at this from a literalist perspective.
What is Jesus?
I mean, is it a literal corporeal being that exists from the heavens?
Or is Jesus more akin to the infinite-finite that links the finite(us) with the infinite(God)?
In order to fully understand my position on this, you have to radically change your overall interpretation of the bible itself. The "apocalypse" isn't meteors raining from the sky, it's the joining of the finite with the infinite.
>>1000704
Yawn.
If you're just going to be silly about it you might as well throw away the whole thing.
>>1000655
It's an allegory of how fucking retarded christians can be
>>1000707
>silly about it
Say that to my Kierkegaard, not online, and see what happens.
Hook u in da gabber m8.
>>1000715
Throw it in the trash mate if you don't believe it. There's no point just spouting gibberish.
>>1000732
>It's a fairly reasonable interpretation of an allegorical reading of the bible.
It's an absolutely ludicrous interpretation of things that clearly aren't intended allegorically.
You're just kidding yourself and no one else. Just chuck your bible away.
>>1000740
I don't see why that's the case.
Did you also read animal farm as a literal account of a farm?
>>1000747
>you read something originally intended as allegory as allegory
>so why not also read something not originally intended as allegory as allegory?
>>1000704
Christfags can't have it both ways though. Are the gospels a historical record of what actually happened or is it all a story that reveals 'spiritual truths' or whatever you wish to call it? Most Christians would lean towards the former.
If the entire thing is just rich in symbolism and none of the discrete events or predictions mean what they seem then maybe Jesus didn't really rise after 3 days, or exist at all, or was actually God, etc.
>>1000747
animal farm was INTENDED to have an allegorical meaning. that doesn't mean you can turn literally any story into an allegory
>>1000747
Animal farm is intended as a clear allegory of Stalinist Russia.
There is simply no connect, none at all, between the things you are talking about the apocalyptic ramblings on the NT.
You're deceiving yourself. They were intended literally and they were taken literally.
>“For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Even if you try and take them as an allegory you haven't demonstrated, not even started to come close to demonstrating how the various citations match up to your meanderings.
>“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
1 John 2:18
>>1000764
I mean that's fine, I'm not particularly trying to have both.
I'd say it's unquestionably the former, and any other attempted reading is very clearly leaving out distinct evidence of the bible being a symbolic work. I'd say the historicity of the various elements is largely irrelevant, but that's just me.
Like I said, I'd argue that Jesus is the infinite-finite linking Man and God, and that as an allegorical translation it makes much more sense in that manner.
>>1000762
Mark Twain prefaced Huckleberry Finn by stating there was no deeper meaning than the story, and Hemmingway proclaimed the sea is just the sea.
Are you going to tell me those were also just literal face value stories as well?
>>1000777
You can easily read that passage as.
"You are in the presence of God if you have been joined by the infinite and the finite". Those that are excluded from this relationship will not be "risen" and are the finite alone. The last hour symbolically representing death, or however you want to take it.
There's no reason this can't be taken allegorically other than you can't sound like a snarky 17 year old if you admit there are multiple different ways to read a passage.
>>1000780
>Like I said, I'd argue that Jesus is the infinite-finite linking Man and God, and that as an allegorical translation it makes much more sense in that manner.
You're not making that argument at all. You are asserting it without argument and it is clearly a claim without substance or merit and, frankly, wrong.
>>1000795
>without substance or merit
I don't see how.
There is a very clear and open theme in the New Testament of Jesus being the link between man and God.
I'm not sure how you missed this.
>>1000780
>Jesus is the infinite-finite linking Man and God
in a sense you are correct, Jesus did fit this, but he fit the role in a literal sense. there is no basis for your allegorical interpretation. you can read it as allegorical if you like but it isn't the original intent of the document. you are really just derailing this thread. this thread is about the literal, original interpretation, not whatever symbolism you want to put in it
>>1000790
I've heard some bad attempts to rationalise away the Delay of the Parousia.
Congratulations, yours is possibly the second worst I have heard.
Not quite as bad as one I got about how Revelation is about John the Baptist time travelling into the future to witness the Apocalypse but still obscenely silly.
>>1000803
>There is a very clear and open theme in the New Testament of Jesus being the link between man and God.
So you're reading the bits you do like literally.
What if God in the bible is just an allegory for cheese, have you thought of that? You've read Animal Farm, right, and that proves it.
>>1000790
you are completely missing the point. there is an original intent to the piece. you can't just say that all interpretations of the passage are equally valid, especially when the original intent is this fucking obvious
>>1000804
>derailing
I made a fairly innocuous post about how a passage worked in another contex.
Which apparently everyone here objects to.
>>1000809
I mean that's fine and I respect your opinion on that, but I think you're viewing the document from a very limited perspective without being willing to view it as a literary work.
>>1000810
I'm not sure how that's literal.
The majority of people I know's analysis extends literally no further than "he's the son of God and died for our sins!"
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Jesus represents the link between God and Man. With that interpretation of Jesus, the context of the passages describing the apocalypse and the return of Jesus have a different launching off point.
If you can argue that God is cheese, I'm willing to hear it.
>>1000811
I don't ever remember there being an author to the bible describing his artistic intent.
>>1000817
What if someone started posting about how Shrek is love, Shrek is life can be read as an allegory for billionaires fucking in the ass the working class who love each and every ass pounding due to Stockholm Syndrome? Why aren't you reading Shrek is love, Shrek is life as a literary work, anon?
>>1000824
I'd love to hear you allegorize the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke
>>1000826
I mean, if you want to start down that road, yes, I would agree that everything states has deeper meaning than what is portrayed in its text.
But shriek is love shrek is life would likely just be a representation of post modern irony being used to degrade meaning in an increasingly commercialized world.
>>1000838
>I would, but I'm on my phone.
>allegorize the genealogies of Jesus
>I would, but I'm on my phone.
You can't make this shit up
>>1000838
>babbles a load of religious twaddle
>oh hey I'm not religious
Sure.
>>1000840
>religious twaddle
Yeah totally man. I'm sure most churches totally have regular sermens on the relationship between the inifinite and the finite right? I hear Hegel has been making a big comeback in baptist circles.
>>1000840
It's actually not too far out there. Richard Carrier views the new testament as intentionally fiction, similar to myths in Mediterranean paganism, that were meant to convey deliberately cryptic and obscure truths. Of course he uses this to posit that none of the events ever happened and Jesus didn't really exist. Which Christians who lean heavily on the allegory bit are definitely not trying to do.
Personally I think if you're willing to throw the whole thing out as far as historical accuracy goes then I don't have a problem with how deep you're willing to read into its symbolism. Some of the events in the book, beyond even the supernatural stuff, almost assuredly didn't happen. Like Jesus clearing out the temple grounds. It's likely that if he tried that he would have been killed by one of the guards.
>>1000850
Richard Carrier only thought that the original version of Mark was an allegory. All of the epistles, the other gospels and even the current edited version of Mark were intended to be read literally according to him. It's pretty ridiculous to try to allegorize an apocalyptic prophecy
>>994521
>Explain yourselves.
They don't have the moral integrity to admit their religions are based on bullshit, and no different than any other fucking religion man ever came up with.
>>997184
yes but what you are saying is not how OP chose to go about making an argument, which is what i was attacking. i couldn't care less whether he was right or not, just whether he could convincingly make a point, which he didn't
>>994521
If i was a serious Christian, or hell any serious religious person, i would be deeply troubled by the world i lived in.
Gods teachings are not upheld if not outwardly ridiculed at every turn. Your religious leaders are all wicked (lol whats new there though?) yet are also teaching strange and downright subversive doctrine to your good, religious children to consume and even though you shouldnt question it, you know in your heart its not the true teachings. Those who openly flaunt sin go unpunished or even thrive.
The world as a whole must seem in outright decline yet no savior appears. no devine intervention.
Still, not my problem, I agree this worlds in the shit but i require no deity. Just firm, worldly leadership to deliver us from the evil that plauges our lands. I can belive that with conviction too, just like my religious brethren have conviction in god saving and helping them, i too belive in self-determination and guiding ones own fate.
Rejoice brothers, for in our lifetimes, We are truly masters of own destiny!
>>994991
Wow. I thought you were gonna get it but you missed it in the end. Generation can mean the whole human race. "Humans will not cease to be before this comes to pass. It will happen as god said in the beginning." Inb4 unproveable. None of you know how to believe anything so disbelieving is no big statement at all.
>>995532
How do you know everyone has died? Jesus said some among them would not die from then until he returned. It seems moot.
>>1000889
>Just firm, worldly leadership
You want big daddy government to come and change your diapers for you?
>>1000891
>Generation can mean...
Whatever the fuck the fanatics want it to mean to justify their bullshit.
Those assholes don't have enough integrity to ever admit they have zero evidence to support their ridiculous bullshit.
>>1000896
nearly 2000 years have past. not even the people in Genesis lived that long
Has nobody fucking seen the name of the file?! Was I the only one literally LOL'ing when I saw that name?
>>995696
>by faith alone
But in James 2:24 it is said that
>You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
So what do i do. Do i keep working towards being good and loving others or entirely give up all that and just have fait?
>>1000904
honestly it wasn't good enough to be worthy of mention in my opinion
>>1000911
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who appreciates puns...
"I will come down from the heavens" = down syndrome
>>1000907
if you have faith the spirit of christ guides you in your actions
>>1000897
>self-determination and guiding ones own fate.
These are things "Big daddy goverment" cannot provide and often work against because it would, you know, undermine it. In other words...
IS A MAN NOT INTITLED TO THE SWEAT ON HIS BROW?
>>1000916
I take that back. I didn't notice the pun. I thought OP was just randomly insulting Jesus
>>1000923
You're worried that the government is going to wipe your brow?
>>1000925
well you dont seem to get the referance but in eccence it means the 'man' (ei the common man) Is entitled to work (ergo 'sweat') and enjoy the fruit of his labours without outside elements expecting tribute. In this case goverment.
Im sorry if you were being deliberatly ignorant and joking, in which case bravo but i was worried you genuinly were confused by my outburst.
Matt 16:28 Amen, I tell you: some are standing here who will not have tasted death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Matt 24:34 Amen, I tell you: that this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished.
Mark 13:30 Amen, I tell you: this generation will not pass away until all these things happen.
Luke 21:32 Amen, I tell you: this generation will not pass away until all [these] things are accomplished.
We note that NONE OF THESE REFER TO THE SECOND COMING! And, so there is no "delay" and therefore Christ is not "wrong"! Instead they refer - in any specific sense - to the Transfiguration (which is witnessed by 'some' (i.e. Saints John, Peter & James) which follows directly on from the first verse quoted above (Mt. 17:1-13). Also, we note the spiritual (non-historical) sense in which we read these things. And, in English the word ‘generation’ does commonly apply to 'a certain group of persons of the same age'. However, the Greek word γενεὰ does not necessarily mean this and could be more literally rendered as ‘race’ or ‘genus’. No Orthodox child would misunderstand these verses. The confusion is the result of clod-hopping prot translations, poor exegesis, and a decidedly un-Orthodox and mischievous reading of Holy Scripture!
>>1000891
>Generation can mean the whole human race. "Humans will not cease to be before this comes to pass
Why would he have to say that though? Humans will not all be dead before I come to kill almost everyone? Well duh.
You're just grasping at straws here.
>>1000704
Oh shut up. You realize no church father has ever interpreted this to mean what you are saying right? If you give the historicity and factuality of the bible you're welcome to interpret it to mean whatever you can imagine in your wildest dreams and produce a lot of bs papers for your book club to jerk off to. But until then we're dealing with christian doctrine as it actually existed as per the church fathers, the creeds, etc. none of which speak of that bs.
