the jesus mistake?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I remember bringing this up a while back in these forums. If God happily uses words which to us mean one thing and to him mean another then we have no hope of understanding the Bible. For example people often say 'To God a day is a thousand years" and then proceed to put a thousand years wherever it says 'day' in the Bible. Now you are telling us that 'ge ...[text shortened]... doesn't make sense then it must mean something else. Hence the Bible can never be wrong.

But God isn't alone in "happily using words" with double (or more) meanings. When I say Mr. Jones is a pillar of the community, I do not mean he is a column of stone. It's the Context that matters. And in context, Jesus could well have been refering to a generation consisting of untold hundreds of years (or more).

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have two problems with this. Firstly , what's the point of saying this? It's a basic truism that his church will be around when it happens. It would be a bit like saying "all these things will happen on earth" ( to which the response would be - "thank you jesus , but I'm sure I didn't think they would happen on venus" )

Secondly , it's a bit like ...[text shortened]... here's a whole feeling of iminence in these words if you look at the context of them.

The early church misunderstood much of Jesus' teachings, and even the disciples didn't understand some of His words until after His death. As for prophecy, I believe to say something will happen after the Church Age is past is legitimate: He has given a specified time and what can be expected to happen after such time.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The early church misunderstood much of Jesus' teachings, and even the disciples didn't understand some of His words until after His death. As for prophecy, I believe to say something will happen after the Church Age is past is legitimate: He has given a specified time and what can be expected to happen after such time.

You obviously didn't bother to read the entire chapters and just accepted what your pastor said hook, line and sinker.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Neither, apparently, are you.

I am familiar enough with the Scriptures to know what I'm talking about. More familiar than, it seems, most posting here, and I'd venture to say, you, also. And quite plainly, I think better than C.S. Lewis. Anglicans in general don't have a very high view of Scripture, unfortunately. I used to be one (actually, I was an Episcopalian, but I hope you understand the connection). I'm not saying that the Bible is an easy book to understand, but if you persevere in reading and studying it, you can learn some things. One thing I have learned is that it is fairly common for prophets, which Jesus did claim to be (see Matt. 13:57 and it's parallels, & Lk. 13:33), to mix together time periods when prophesying. If you understand that the prophet is simply being a mouthpiece, and often does not have the full knowledge of the things he is speaking about (see 1 Peter 1:10-12)when he/she is prophesying, it may be easier for you to accept. Read the Old Testament prophets. See how they often string together things without heed to chronology. For example, in Isaiah 7, Isaiah prophesies to Ahaz, the king of Judah, and then tells him to ask a sign from God to confirm what was just spoken. Ahaz refuses to, and Isaiah then prophesies saying nevertheless God will give a sign - a virgin shall conceive and bear a son - and then continues to tell Ahaz the judgement that will befall him and his household because of his disobedience.
At the heart of all our posts in this thread are the 2 questions, "Is Jesus fallible? Is the Bible fallible?" I would make the case that they are both infallible, but that our understanding of them is fallible. If it leads people to actually read those passages and research the quotes, I guess that's well and good. I find too often that many just ignorantly spout off without any real knowledge of what their opining about, and because I do have some knowledge of the Scriptures, I can often spot those cases.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
In fact, He was speaking of the church age (church generation), which started with Christ and is still underway today.

Doesn't that make Jesus kind of disingenuous, using the word 'generation' in a fashion utterly
inconsistent with the definition of the term by any reasonable standard? I mean, no other reference
to 'generation' in the Bible, by Jesus or any other speaker or author, uses the term to mean an
unspecified, very, very long period of time.

I mean, if Jesus says 'You people, your generation will see the Second Coming,' it seems pretty
dishonest if by 'you people' He didn't mean 'you people' but some future people.

Nemesio

==========================

Doesn't that make Jesus kind of disingenuous, using the word 'generation' in a fashion utterly ...


I mean, no other reference to 'generation' in the Bible, by Jesus or any other speaker or author, uses the term to mean an
unspecified, very, very long period of time.

==================================


I already submitted examples of other usages of the word generation in the Bible and particularly the New Testament.

So it does not make Jesus disingenuous. Your failure to grasp the alternative usage of "generation" might indicate instead that you are a kind of sloppy reader or superfiscial student of the New Testament.

Here again are references to "generation/s" which do not take on the meaning that they would in the geneology of Jesus as told in Matthew chapter 1:

Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41-42,45; See also Proverbs 30:11-14.


Here generation is used not according to the age of a man but according to a condition of morality.

When the disciples specifically asked Jesus when He would restore the kingdom of God to Israel He told them that it was determined by the Father and not for them to know (Acts 1:6,7)


So if it was none of their business to know the precise time and season of His second coming in this last eartly discussion of Jesus, it is hard to imagine that He previously contradicted that.

What He did emphasize was that they should always be on guard to watch and pray and live as if He could come again at any moment.

We are not told that all would be fulfilled before that generation passed away. We are told all would come to pass before heaven and earth passed away. That is His word is more reliable than the physical existence of the universe. Though the time tarry, it will inevitably come.


The fact that disciples DESIRED His soon return or even BELIEVED in His soon return does not effect this teaching of Jesus that He did not pin point WHEN He would return.

I want Him to return today. I believe He will in my life time. I could be wrong though. There is no harm in wanting Him to do so.

My wanting Him to or believing that He will does not mean that He told me it would happen at the time I suspect.


Besides this, none of us is assured that we will even see the end of the day alive. For all intents and purposes Christ's coming for each of us will be when we unexpectedly depart in death.

Your time may be up this evening on the way to the store in an automobile. Mine too.

Did Christ fail to keep His promise and come again in the first century. I do not think so.

As I have said many times before, when Jesus Christ does again descend onto this earth, the vast majority of living people will think that it is too soon rather than too late.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
But God isn't alone in "happily using words" with double (or more) meanings. When I say Mr. Jones is a pillar of the community, I do not mean he is a column of stone. It's the Context that matters. And in context, Jesus could well have been refering to a generation consisting of untold hundreds of years (or more).

Both you and I know perfectly well what 'pillar of the community' means and there is infact no double meaning in the phrase. You also know perfectly well that if the bible verse in question had not been called to account that not one single person would have ever suggested that 'generation' in that context meant anything other than a typical human generation.

Of course it would be nice to hear the perspective of someone who knows the Greek.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
At the heart of all our posts in this thread are the 2 questions, "Is Jesus fallible? Is the Bible fallible?" I would make the case that they are both infallible, but that our understanding of them is fallible.

You have an unsupportable case because you have a nonexistent infallible object. What is this 'Bible' that you talk about as being infallible? A particular version/translation? The oldest known copy? Every copy ever made? What was originally written down - but we can never know because the originals are lost?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
But God isn't alone in "happily using words" with double (or more) meanings. When I say Mr. Jones is a pillar of the community, I do not mean he is a column of stone. It's the Context that matters. And in context, Jesus could well have been refering to a generation consisting of untold hundreds of years (or more).

"And in context, Jesus could well have been refering to a generation consisting of untold hundreds of years (or more)........................."


----RESPONSE-------------

...But why? What wouild be the point ?

knightmeister, I would be interested to know why you go for the Chinese whispers option and not the invented story option. Do you for example have absolute faith that the gospel writers only recorded Jesus saying things that they believed Jesus did actually say (based on some source, whether Chinese or not.)
I believe that many scholars (including Christian ones) have claimed that at least some of the passages about Jesus were never intended to be historically accurate and where rather a vehicle for a theological lesson that the writer wanted to teach - just as Jesus himself is reported to have used parables.

Originally posted by twhitehead
knightmeister, I would be interested to know why you go for the Chinese whispers option and not the invented story option. Do you for example have absolute faith that the gospel writers only recorded Jesus saying things that they believed Jesus did actually say (based on some source, whether Chinese or not.)
I believe that many scholars (including Christ ...[text shortened]... esson that the writer wanted to teach - just as Jesus himself is reported to have used parables.

Yes , I do believe that the Gospels are a recording of what he said and did. To me it's like a newspaper report. Each journalist has his own angle and interpretation (which is to be expected). If you read all four accounts you can arrive at an approximation of what was said. The fact that there may be mistranslations hear and there or some things emphasised or misheard is just poetic licence. I'm not convinced that any of the Gospels contain outright fabrications worthy of a modern day libel action , but that doesn't mean they are infallible nor does the fact they are fallible make them false.

You can have an "all or nothing , throw the baby out with the bath water" approach if you like but that would just make you the polar reverse of the fundies who can admit no fallibility.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Doesn't that make Jesus kind of disingenuous, using the word 'generation' in a fashion utterly
inconsistent with the definition of the term by any reasonable standard? I mean, no other reference
to 'generation' in the Bible, by Jesus or any other speaker or author, uses the term to mean an
unspecified, very, very long period of time.

I mean, if Jesus ...[text shortened]... st if by 'you people' He didn't mean 'you people' but some future people.

Nemesio

I agree.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , I do believe that the Gospels are a recording of what he said and did. To me it's like a newspaper report. Each journalist has his own angle and interpretation (which is to be expected). If you read all four accounts you can arrive at an approximation of what was said. The fact that there may be mistranslations hear and there or some things emph ...[text shortened]... t that doesn't mean they are infallible nor does the fact they are fallible make them false.

Of course we both know that newspapers frequently do publish stories worthy of libel action and that the average of all stories is frequently not an approximation of what was said. (ask any Hollywood star). But that doesn't really matter, I do understand what you are saying.

So why do you believe that? You apparently walk a fine line between infallibility and fallibility. It appears that you are saying that:
1. If a gospel reports Jesus as saying something then it can be taken infallibly that Jesus said something similar.
2. What Jesus actually said might not have been infallibly reported.

My concern is especially with 1. Surely the only reason you would have for believing it is if you think that God ensured that it was the case. am I wrong there? Do you have any other valid argument? If I am right, then how do you explain 2?