When Doctrine Corrects Christ

[Wrangler]

Correct. Now compare the two inferences. One says “this generation” means the generation Jesus is actually speaking to in the discourse. The other says “this generation” means some completely different generation thousands of years later, in a galaxy far, far away on the other side of the planet. Which one requires the text to do more gymnastics?

Neither and irrelevant. You are hung up on this foolishness; It’s a question of referring to the audience at the time OR the time when the signs under discussion happen. Both are plausible from the text. It’s understanding language usage.

Suppose I tell you about a conversation I had with my mother ABOUT my sister. She said something very insightful. Who is “she,“ the person I’m speaking with, my mother OR the one we are talking about, my sister? Both are plausible from the text.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Neither and irrelevant. You are hung up on this foolishness; It’s a question of referring to the audience at the time OR the time when the signs under discussion happen. Both are plausible from the text. It’s understanding language usage.

Suppose I tell you about a conversation I had with my mother ABOUT my sister. She said something very insightful. Who is “she,“ the person I’m speaking with, my mother OR the one we are talking about, my sister? Both are plausible from the text.

Your analogy only works if the text already contains two possible generations, the way your example already contains two possible women. It doesn’t, you supplied the second generation yourself and then called the resulting ambiguity “language usage.” Show me where Jesus introduces that second generation. Book. Chapter. Verse.

Its like Han is standing next to Chewbacca and says, “This guy saved my life.” Wrangler says “this guy” could mean Chewbacca or Yoda 1900 years earlier. Both are plausible.

You're literally inventing a second generation that Jesus never mentioned just to avoid believing the generation He actually named.

That's not interpretation.

That's setting your own doctrine above the spoken Word of Almighty God.

 

[Wrangler]

Your analogy only works if the text already contains two possible generations

It does. You’re in denial that it does. TO and ABOUT are the generations the text contains as is normal language usage.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

It does. You’re in denial that it does. TO and ABOUT are the generations the text contains as is normal language usage.

No. “TO” and “ABOUT” are not two generations. They are two prepositions you're using to smuggle a second generation into the passage after the fact.

Jesus is speaking to His disciples about events. Fine... Now produce the verse where Christ identifies some completely different future generation and then calls that generation “THIS generation.”

You keep insisting the second generation is “in the text.”

Then stop describing your theory and quote the text please.

Where does Jesus say:

“I am speaking to you, but when I say THIS generation, I actually mean an unnamed generation thousands of years from now”?

He doesn’t.

You manufactured the second generation, inserted it into Christ’s mouth, and are now calling your own insertion “normal language usage.”

That's not exegesis.

That's doctrine rewriting the words of Christ, plain and simple.

That is demonstrably falsifying the Word of God by inserting a generation Christ never named.