The Divinity of Christ

[God Conquers]

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.

[Semalsia]

[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.

[God Conquers]

Not based on the evidence we have though.

[point5]

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.

[Pistos]

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.

[scardella]

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 )

[Melchisedec]

[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.

[james]

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

[Pistos]

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.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[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.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Pistos' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:05 PM'] 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. [/quote]
[quote] The existance of multiple fulfillment means we have to do lots of work to find out all we can about a particular prophesy from the rest of the Bible. We then have to make ALL the pieces fit the picture we have in mind.[/quote]

Thats the problem with multiple fulfillment, you use it to make the bible work for you. You take it away, and it falls apart. I really haven't seen many apologetics go through this road. Maybe there is a reason for that.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:18 PM'] The word for "generation" also means "age" or "era"...nice try. [/quote]
The problem with that, the word is never used in that light throughout the bible. And it is considered among scholars to be an uncommon use of that word to mean 'age', 'era' or 'race'. How about taking into account that in 52 translations of the bible, its always written as 'generations'. If you want all 52 examples, Id be happy to show them to you.

Edited March 31, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:29 PM'] The problem with that, the word is never used in that light throughout the bible. And it is considered among scholars to be an uncommon use of that word to mean 'age', 'era' or 'race'. How about taking into account that in 52 translations of the bible, its always written as 'generations'. If you want all 52 examples, Id be happy to show them to you. [/quote]
I have no doubt that it is consistently translated as "generation." However, even in English, the word "generation" can refer to an era or general time period.

Oh, and I know Koine Greek.

[Pistos]

Melchisedec: For the time being, I don't have a problem with "making the Bible work". In my Christian journey so far, it has become clear that anyone or any denomination can take various bits of Scripture to "conclude" all sorts of whatever-the-heck they want. I place my faith first in: Jesus is divine; second in the Church I believe he founded. Then I listen to see if there is a Catholic defense, clarification or refutation for any given Scriptural interpretation -- including allegations that Jesus lied in Matthew 24:34.

So, in some sense, I agree: You make Matt 24:34 "work for you" to support the untruthfulness or untrustworthiness of Jesus' recorded words, while I make it work for me to support that he isn't a liar.

Again, I say: Matthew 24:34 is not sufficient reason [for me] to disbelieve in the claims of Christ.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:35 PM'] I have no doubt that it is consistently translated as "generation." However, even in English, the word "generation" can refer to an era or general time period.

Oh, and I know Koine Greek. [/quote]
When I tell you, 'this generation' what am I talking about?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Pistos' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:42 PM'] So, in some sense, I agree: You make Matt 24:34 "work for you" to support the untruthfulness or untrustworthiness of Jesus' recorded words, while I make it work for me to support that he isn't a liar.
[/quote]
How so?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:56 PM'] When I tell you, 'this generation' what am I talking about? [/quote]
It depends on whether you are using the term "generation" in an archaic English way or not.

At best, your argument only proves that the English language has moved away from using the term "generation" in the sense of an era or age.

[Pistos]

Melchisedec: "How so" what? You know how you make it work for you; I make it work for me by multiple fulfillments. Or what are you asking?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:04 PM'] It depends on whether you are using the term "generation" in an archaic English way or not.

At best, your argument only proves that the English language has moved away from using the term "generation" in the sense of an era or age. [/quote]
[quote]"body of individuals born about the same period  (usually 30 years),"[/quote]

According to the etymology of the word.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Pistos' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:04 PM'] You know how you make it work for you; [/quote]
I really dont know. I honestly feel that all I am addressing it and showing to you the translation of the word and what the word means. But show me from your perspective what you think Im doing to 'make it work for me'. Im curious.