Melchisedec Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) [quote]I was just offering one explanation.... that He DID come back. [/quote] He was ressurected. He did not come back as promised he would. [quote] One thing we can't understand doesn't overule 100 promises kept[/quote] Like I said before, this promise encompasses many promises and is a huge part of the christian religion. Considering many wait jesus's return and he clearly did not return when he stated he would. Edited March 30, 2005 by Melchisedec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 30 2005, 11:11 AM'] You forgot to include his final return, which encompasses that promise. [/quote] That promise does not necessarily refer to the second coming. Some exegetes seem to think that this refers to the destruction of the temple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 This was referring to the destruction of the temple. The early christians took it literally and when the saw the signs they fled Jerusalem and escaped destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 He also appeared in this very way to John in Revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='God Conquers']LIARS are self-serving, uncharitable, self-preserving, and what they say doesn't come true. These qualities don't fit the historical Jesus... so [b]He wasn't a liar.[/b][/quote] I don't think you can make that conclusion just because his words came true. There are other possibilities, like coincidence and other people making them true. Therefor you haven't refuted the possibility that Jesus might have been a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 It's personality type that I'm looking at here: Someone who lies (about important things... like BEING GOD) comports themselves ina very particular way. They DEFINATELY will not die for their lie, because lies are self serving. If they do, they are in the Lunatic category and would portray very different characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote]They DEFINATELY will not die for their lie, because lies are self serving.[/quote] Oh, ok I see. But still you could say that death was an accident. That he's plan failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Not based on the evidence we have though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point5 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Jesus did come back before that generation passed...in the Eucharist and if Jesus was lying he could have prevented his death by coming clean when he realized he was going to die for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistos Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Although I don't think GC's original post in this thread is logically sound, I would like to address the allegation that Jesus' prophecy did not come true. This was something I investigated a while back, because I also had the same objection. My research came up with a good article from EWTN, which essentially introduced me to the concept of multiple meaning or multiple fulfillment when it comes to prophecy or scriptural interpretation. This idea is also found in the writings of Catholic apologists like Scott Hahn. They say that a given passage of scripture can have more than one fulfillment or meaning. For example, the woman of Revelations 12 can be both Mary (giving birth to Christ) and Israel (giving birth to Christ, or the Church of Christ). Just like throwing a stone in a pond causes multiple ripples from one stone, Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 (and the parallels: Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) has multiple fulfillments: Once in the Jerusalem temple (and the ushering in of the New Jerusalem, with the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist), but again in Jesus' second coming at the end of the age. Unfortunately, EWTN's Q&A search is broken at the moment, so I can't locate the original Q&A response that addressed this issue. But I hope my brief explanation sheds at least some light on it. I know that this line of reasoning is enough for me to make the "Jesus' propechy didn't come true" argument not hold enough water to undermine Christ's authority or divinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 it seems clear to me that WHENEVER Jesus uses "generation" in his speech in the Gospels, ex: Mt 11:16, 12:39, 12:41, 16:4, etc... Mk 8:12, 8:38, 9:19, 13:30 Lk 1:50, 7:31, 11:51, etc. that the quotes seem to be equally or more applicable to all men since the fall. When I read about "perverse generation" it seems just as applicable today as it did 2000 years ago. Therefore, I would have to argue against a literalistic interpretation here. (Here you're talking about someone who loves to take things literally, too ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='Pistos' date='Mar 31 2005, 12:33 PM'] Although I don't think GC's original post in this thread is logically sound, I would like to address the allegation that Jesus' prophecy did not come true. This was something I investigated a while back, because I also had the same objection. My research came up with a good article from EWTN, which essentially introduced me to the concept of multiple meaning or multiple fulfillment when it comes to prophecy or scriptural interpretation. This idea is also found in the writings of Catholic apologists like Scott Hahn. They say that a given passage of scripture can have more than one fulfillment or meaning. For example, the woman of Revelations 12 can be both Mary (giving birth to Christ) and Israel (giving birth to Christ, or the Church of Christ). Just like throwing a stone in a pond causes multiple ripples from one stone, Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 (and the parallels: Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) has multiple fulfillments: Once in the Jerusalem temple (and the ushering in of the New Jerusalem, with the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist), but again in Jesus' second coming at the end of the age. Unfortunately, EWTN's Q&A search is broken at the moment, so I can't locate the original Q&A response that addressed this issue. But I hope my brief explanation sheds at least some light on it. I know that this line of reasoning is enough for me to make the "Jesus' propechy didn't come true" argument not hold enough water to undermine Christ's authority or divinity. [/quote] Your argument seems nothing but conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Those who attempt to explain away Matthew 24:34 with creative twisting of the meaning of the term "generation" are perpetuating the Protestant dispensationalist distortions of C.I. Scofield. Those who attempt to apply Matthew 24:34 to the Israeli state which was founded in 1948 and our present generation are perpetuating the "Rapture" myth of Hal Lindsay and various other Protestant evangelical kooks. Matthew 24:34 was fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD. Edited March 31, 2005 by james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistos Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Melchisedec: I don't think it is unreasonable for you to consider the "this generation" prophecy sufficient basis to believe Jesus is a liar. At the same time, I do not find your arguments sufficient basis to dissuade me from my position. I think the multiple fulfillments idea is not unreasonable, especially when other parts of Scripture exhibit it. If I were [still] atheist, Matthew 24:34 would be enough reason for me, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 30 2005, 12:02 PM'] [i] Matthew 24:34. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [/i] His generation passed. I consider that a lie. [/quote] The word for "generation" also means "age" or "era"...nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now