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, put words in Christ’s mouth, and are now calling the result “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.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

While we’re at it. Revelation gives us one victorious appearing of Christ. Show me where John splits that return into two separate arrivals. Book. Chapter. Verse.

Show me where John backs up your modern, manmade 'Left Behind" fairytale.

He never does. That second arrival has to be manufactured by the system too. It’s the same shell game all over again: create a distinction John never states, give it a fancy sounding theological label, and then teach Jebediah at the turn of the last century that he simply wasn’t reading the Bible “deeply enough” to see it.

1930: “OH MY GOSH! So Jesus secretly comes once, disappears again, and then comes back AGAIN later; and somehow John forgot to plainly mention the two separate arrivals?! I never knew that!”

“Exactly, Jebediah. Now you’re learning prophecy.”

“I know! It’s crazy how much cool stuff was apparently hiding in the Bible until you showed me this system! See, before I thought Christ returned once because that’s what the New Testament plainly says. But now that I have the charts and magic decoder ring, I understand; the plain reading was wrong and your system was right!”

^ Funny as that sounds, this stops being funny the moment a manmade system is allowed to overrule the words of Christ.

Know this...

When Christ returns in judgment, “my system taught me otherwise” will not be a defense.

 

[Lizbeth]

You already conceded the point:

Christ warned THEM.
“This generation” meant THEM.
Jerusalem fell.
The Temple came down in AD 70.

Now you're trying to resurrect the prophecy after it was fulfilled.

Where did Jesus say: “And then I will fulfill all of this AGAIN, thousands of years later, upon Gentiles”?

He didn't.

“MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY” means His words do not fail.

It does not mean fulfilled prophecies endlessly recycle and become theological zombies, dragged back out of the grave because somebody's manmade system still needs them alive.

Romans 2 doesn't say Matthew 24 happens twice.

Ecclesiastes doesn't say Matthew 24 happens twice.

Jacob's wives don't say Matthew 24 happens twice.

The two-witness law doesn't say Matthew 24 happens twice.

You're stacking allegory on top of allegory to manufacture a second fulfillment Jesus never mentioned.

So strip away the charts, patterns, brides, witnesses and speculation and answer the text:

Where did Christ say His prophecy belongs to TWO generations separated by thousands of years?

Please cite the Book. Chapter and Verse.

Otherwise, AD 70 stands exactly where Christ put it.

Yes but has He judged the world (Gentiles) yet? The bible says He is going to. And the bible says Israel is our example...prophetic type. The modern day church and Christendom in general seems to be following the same pattern as Israel......apostasy and becoming ripe for judgment.

 

[Lizbeth]

Wrangler just conceded my entire point:

“Never explicitly says it. It’s called an inference.”

Exactly.

Jesus explicitly says:

THIS generation.

The future generation is your inference.

And Lizbeth, “first the natural, then the spiritual” still doesn't say Matthew 24 happens twice.

You're both doing the same thing:

Jesus gives a direct time statement, and then an outside theological inference is brought in to alter it.

So we're back to the original question:

Where did JESUS say this prophecy belongs to another generation thousands of years later?

Nowhere in the discourse. Nowhere in God’s Word.

And that’s the problem.

I don't feel like I'm making inferences, but that the Lord is stringing some pearls together, so to speak.

 

[Wrangler]

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”?

Where does Jesus say, “Although I’m speaking ABOUT end times not too soon, the people listening TO me now in THIS generation, will not pass before the end comes? Book. Chapter. Verse.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Where does Jesus say, “Although I’m speaking ABOUT end times not too soon, the people listening TO me now in THIS generation, will not pass before the end comes? Book. Chapter. Verse.

You still didn’t answer the question.
You replaced Christ’s words with your paraphrase and then asked me to defend the paraphrase.

Jesus said:
“THIS generation shall not pass…”

You say:
“an unnamed future generation shall not pass…”

So once again:
Where does Jesus identify that second generation?

Book. Chapter. Verse.

Until you can quote it, you're not showing me “language usage.”

You're showing me your theology standing where the antecedent should be.

Its like serpents whispering the system from the deepest pit of hell - "Our interpretation is not contradicted by God’s Word. Your inability to find it in the text merely proves that you do not understand God’s Word. The text does not naturally produce our doctrine, so you must first accept our doctrine in order to understand God’s Word."

For the atheist lurkers trying to follow along here..

We're basically back to Star Wars again, same situation..

Han is standing alone in a room next to Chewbacca and says: “This guy saved my life.”

You ask Wrangler, “Who is ‘this guy’?”

He says:

“Obviously Yoda, 1900 years later.”

You say, “Where was Yoda introduced as the person Han means?”

And Wrangler answers:

“Where does Han say he DOESN’T mean Yoda? Book. Chapter. Verse!?”

Thats the sleight of hand from the system.

It invents a referent that isn’t in the sentence, then tries to make you prove the invented referent is impossible.


Clear your mind and think for a moment. .

We already had people in 1920 saying "THIS IS IT! WE'RE THE GENERATION!" and now 106 years later their great-great grand children are still saying the same thing. .

If “this generation” can always be detached from the people Jesus is addressing and reassigned to whichever generation happens to be reading later, then the interpretation has no stopping point.

In 2200:

“Clearly He meant us.”

In the year 2600:

“No, clearly He meant us.”

In 3200:

“You’re both wrong. THIS is the generation!”

While the one generation Christ actually called ‘THIS generation’ is somehow the only generation He didn’t mean!

Leaving His plain words either misleading, or mistaken under your interpretation.

That's the absurdity of it all.

It's absolutely OUTRAGEOUS.

Do you not understand what that means?!?

THAT IMPLICATION IS ANTICHRISTIC.

THAT WOULD MAKE CHRIST A FALLIBLE TEACHER AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE SON OF GOD.

They have passively trained you to accept an interpretation that undermines full trust in Christ as Messiah, whether you realize the implication or not.


Remove this manmade madness from your mind and repent.

 

[Wrangler]

You still didn’t answer the question.

Yes I did answer the question - just not the way you want. See post #21.

Also, you still didn’t answer the question.

Where does Jesus say, “Although I’m speaking ABOUT end times not too soon, the people listening TO me now in THIS generation, will not pass before the end comes? Book. Chapter. Verse.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Yes I did answer the question - just not the way you want. See post #21.

Also, you still didn’t answer the question.

No, you still haven’t produced it.

Christ said:

“THIS generation shall not pass.”

You say He meant some other generation thousands of years later.

Fine.

Show me where He names it.

Not “TO and ABOUT" gymnastics.
Not your paraphrase.
Not “see post #21.”

Book. Chapter. Verse.

Until then, you're not interpreting Christ.

You're supplying a generation He never gave you and then demanding everyone else pretend it was there.

I don’t play pretend with my eternal soul, and neither should you.

 

[amigo de christo]

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Just verses unjust
righteous verses unrighteous
How can a man who calls GOD a liar ever be counted righteous with GOD
or justified by God .
And now a friendly reminder for us both .
HE who BELIEVES not the testimony that GOD gave of the SON
calls GOD a liar .
Remember well that the apostles were very very startled at what JESUS had said
and then asked him a very dire important question .
WHO then LORD can be SAVED .
And JESUS did not say HE who puts horse in cart .
HE said WITH MAN this is IMPOSSIBLE .
BUT NOT WITH GOD .
Pro deo , how did GOD choose to save the world .
GOD chose by the preaching of the gospel to save those who do what ............
BELEIVE .
SO anything or anyone implying BELIEF IN CHRIST is not necessary
IS calling GOD a liar . AND IT is a false g ospel

 

[Marvelloustime]

Just verses unjust
righteous verses unrighteous
How can a man who calls GOD a liar ever be counted righteous with GOD
or justified by God .
And now a friendly reminder for us both .
HE who BELIEVES not the testimony that GOD gave of the SON
calls GOD a liar .
Remember well that the apostles were very very startled at what JESUS had said
and then asked him a very dire important question .
WHO then LORD can be SAVED .
And JESUS did not say HE who puts horse in cart .
HE said WITH MAN this is IMPOSSIBLE .
BUT NOT WITH GOD .
Pro deo , how did GOD choose to save the world .
GOD chose by the preaching of the gospel to save those who do what ............
BELEIVE .
SO anything or anyone implying BELIEF IN CHRIST is not necessary
IS calling GOD a liar . AND IT is a false g ospel

@amigo de christo

 

[JimKnox]

Somewhere in a holler in Tennessee, 1956...


“Hey Jebediah, did ya hear the news about Jesus Christ feeding the 5,000?!”


Jebediah: “I sure didn’t! What are you talking about?!”


“Oh my gosh, Jebediah; Jesus predicted the American interstate highway system!”


Jebediah: “HE DID WHAT?!”


“Yep! It’s all right there in the Bible!”


Jebediah: “Are you kidding me?! The Bible really says that?!”


“That’s right. Look here: Jesus said, ‘And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.’ For nearly two thousand years Christians thought He was merely teaching people to go beyond what was required. They completely missed it. Christ was prophetically revealing the American Interstate Highway System! The five loaves represent five federal transportation zones, the two fish represent the House and Senate, and the twelve baskets left over prophetically signify the original twelve lanes of the Millennial Superhighway! He was pointing forward to a nationwide controlled-access highway network that would unite America under Eisenhower!”


Jebediah: “OH MY GOSH! Jesus was really talking about us?!?!!!”


"That's right! You didn’t see it before because you were just reading the Bible regular like.”

“Now, Jebediah, for just $24.95, you too can learn our system and discover all kinds of things secretly buried in God’s Word about the United States government!”


Jebediah: “YOU MEAN IT’S ALL IN THERE?!”


“Every bit of it! Congress, highways, federal agencies, tax districts; maybe even the Department of Transportation!”


Jebediah: “BUT I’VE READ THE BIBLE MY WHOLE LIFE!”

“Exactly, Jebediah. That was your first mistake. You were reading the Bible without our notes to let you know what God was really saying!”

Jebediah: “OH MY GOSH!!! Well I’ll be. Let me get my wallet!”


“And because you ordered today, you'll receive our absolutely free bonus prophecy charts:

“THE TWELVE BASKETS, THE FEDERAL RESERVE, AND WHY JESUS SECRETLY WARNED ABOUT THE DMV” along with “JESUS, THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ACT, AND THE MYSTERY OF THE SEVEN MILE MARKERS”

What a waste of bandwidth.

 

[JimKnox]

That doesnt solve the problem. It dodges it.

“All these things” tells us what events are in view. It doesn't tell us who “this generation” is.

You can spend ten pages arguing about wars, signs, tribulation, stars, temples, kingdoms, or anything else contained in “all these things,” and when you're finished, Jesus will still have said: “THIS generation shall not pass.”

So no, your counter-question is not some brilliant prerequisite that prevents you from answering mine. Its a diversion from the exact phrase you were asked to explain.

Now answer the sentence.

What does “this generation” mean?

Where does Jesus say “this” means another generation thousands of years later on the other side of the world within God's Word?

Thats the question.

And of course, by doing this... that would mean that Jesus Christ was deceiving everyone He was actually talking to.. "His generation." Making Him a deceiver? Either that or The Son of God was confused and mistaken about His own prophecy?

Pretending that I must first solve an entirely different phrase before youre capable of addressing two ordinary words > “this generation” is not an argument. Its folly dressed up as procedure.

There’s "nothing more to discuss" because you still cant produce, from God’s raw Word, Christ saying that a prophecy He spoke to His own generation was secretly meant for some other generation thousands of years later. Until you can, you're not showing me Christ’s words; you're showing me a system imposed on them.

The generation that SEES all those things is the SAME generation Jesus is talking about.

Since the generation Jesus was speaking TO did NOT see those things, it is a perversion of Scripture to say different.

It is as simple as that. Your problem is the time factor. Somehow you WANT non-preterists to say something that is not in the text. But YOU are guilty of that which you are accusing others.

The generation that SEES is not the generation living at that time.

 

[JimKnox]

No, you still haven’t produced it.

Christ said:

“THIS generation shall not pass.”

You say He meant some other generation thousands of years later.

Fine.

Show me where He names it.

Not “TO and ABOUT" gymnastics.
Not your paraphrase.
Not “see post #21.”

Book. Chapter. Verse.

Until then, you're not interpreting Christ.

You're supplying a generation He never gave you and then demanding everyone else pretend it was there.

I don’t play pretend with my eternal soul, and neither should you.

The generation that SEES ALL those things.

You are playing Word games with the text.

The generation living at that time DID NOT see all those things happen.

Simple as that.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The generation that SEES all those things is the SAME generation Jesus is talking about.

Since the generation Jesus was speaking TO did NOT see those things, it is a perversion of Scripture to say different.

It is as simple as that. Your problem is the time factor. Somehow you WANT non-preterists to say something that is not in the text. But YOU are guilty of that which you are accusing others.

The generation that SEES is not the generation living at that time.

No. You just repeated the same unsupported substitution that’s been going on throughout the thread..

You're not saying anything new..

Christ said:

“THIS generation shall not pass.”

You changed it to:

“the generation that sees.”

Fine.

Show me where Christ says those are two different generations.

Not your conclusion.
Not your manmade system.
Not capital letters.

Book. Chapter. Verse. >

Until then, you are not interpreting Christ.

You’re adding to His words, making God incarnate say something He never said, and then turning around and telling everyone else they’re the ones misreading Him.

 

[JimKnox]

No. You just repeated the same unsupported substitution that’s been going on throughout the thread..

You're not saying anything new..

Christ said:

“THIS generation shall not pass.”

You changed it to:

“the generation that sees.”

Fine.

Show me where Christ says those are two different generations.

Not your conclusion.
Not your manmade system.
Not capital letters.

Book. Chapter. Verse. >

Until then, you are not interpreting Christ.

You’re adding to His words, making God incarnate say something He never said, and then turning around and telling everyone else they’re the ones misreading Him.

Apparently misrepresentation is one of the arrows in your quiver.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Apparently misrepresentation is one of the arrows in your quiver.

We’re all still patiently waiting for the verse where Christ Himself identifies the future generation you claim He meant by “THIS generation."

Book. Chapter. Verse please...

 

[JimKnox]

We’re all still patiently waiting for the verse where Christ Himself identifies the future generation you claim He meant by “THIS generation."

Book. Chapter. Verse please...

Your habit of cherry picking verses out of context might make for a neat little pie but it is hardly a sound method of Scriptural exegesis.

The CONTEXT is two fold.

Any novice can read chapter 21 of Luke and refute your preterist view.

But I am done with you. Titus 3:10.

Blocked. I can not endure nincompoops for too long.