Did Jesus lie ?

sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were taking issue with my interpretation of the synoptics and the kingdom passages.That aside, let's move on : As we don't really know what Jesus thought (not even if what he said came across as meant to) , I can't really emphatically exclude any possibilities. For the same reasons I can't claim that Jesus lied either. However, reading the text in question at face value and also within the wider context of the book in which it's presented I feel that the most plausible interpretation by far is that it's referring to the return of Jesus and the establishing of the kingdom of God.The reasons for my conclusion are:1) the context set in the preceding verse which describes the 'how' and 'what' of Jesus' return. The following verse tells us 'when'. Both verses mention the Son of Man coming. 28 refers directly to the kingdom, 27 doesn't mention the kingdom directly but uses the same terminology used in other chapters in Matthew alluding to the kingdom.2) Grammatically, verse 28 appears to be a continuation of verse 27. "Verily I say unto you," Jesus proclaims, appearing to be emphasising what he just said (Son of Man coming). He then tells them by when to expect what he told them in v27.3) Both verses 27 and 28 appear to be a summary of what is detailed in chapt 25, describing the kingdom and the judgement. Again, same phraseology is used on both occasions.4) Throughout the synoptics, and Matthew in particular, Jesus presents the establishment of the kingdom as something
imminent and physical that the disciples will live to enjoy. I summarize this in Message 255. This fits in right in with and reflects verses 27 and 28.So, overall, I think there many overwhelming reasons to believe this refers to the Coming of Jesus and the establishing of the kingdom and only a weak one (sequential verses) to support the 'Transfiguration as a Preview' theory.That doesn't mean that Jesus lied, it just means he got it wrong. He was only human after all!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

If the author has set the presedent for the period of time meant by the word generation, then all those things must come to pass, and the word genea obviously means something more than a period of 30-100 years, since those things have not happened, unless He is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. It is very clear in the lexicon that the word generation can mean age, or time, not just a group of people, or a certain age of a group of people.I am sure all the disciples were of the same generation, in regards to age. I consider a generation, like generation X, or the "baby boomers" a group of varying ages, from a period of about 10 years. The word generation can mean that, but I do not get that from the text, or the context in which is was written, since so much destruction was talked about, and so many things must come to pass. I also do not get that from all the notes, and commentaries I have read, or the greek dictionary.What amazes me is that, I seem to be willing to accept if I am wrong, but you and legend do not, even though I have proved that the word generation can mean something else other than a period of years 30-100.It is almost as if you guys are the ones with the pre-concieved notions, and I am actually the one with the open mind. Then shouldn't we be studying the word "this"?
Why didn't he say your generation?

..or you could just have said "this generation". Which he did.If you see Bush on TV saying that this generation will see the end of the Iraq war, would you, or anyone else, misunderstand what he said because he said 'this generation' and not 'your generation' ? Or maybe he just meant what he said and what was written: 'This generation' shall not pass away till all these things are fulfilled.Here I go again, asking Christians to trust their Bible! I agree with all of the above apart from the 'nation' bit. Where is this definition from ? err..... Matt12:45 says "genea" and so does Luke 16:8. They're both referring to people at a specific point in time. Where do you find these quotes ?I'm not aware of any ancient Greek texts where the word is used to denote something other than I've already described or is used in any broader sense than the modern usage. Can you substantiate your claim ?

quote:

---

The confusion arises when you want to make the text fit within your pre-conceptions.

---

If you're approaching this as un-biased as possible why are you trying to make Jesus's words into something they're not ? ?? Just in the last sentence you said you're approaching this as un-biased as possible! Now you're saying you're not! based on what you've said above, I'm afraid this statement now stands stronger than ever! purpledawn has already explained this in Message 253 so I'm not going to repeat it You're saying that because these things haven't happened then the word generation doesn't mean what it means, cause if it did that would make Jesus wrong!(sigh........bangs head against wall...)and then you're expecting me to retract this : you're just making me wanting to post this in giant letters as the subject of 1000 posts in 1000 threads.Listen, I'm going to say this for the last time:- the word 'generation' means ....generation, a group of people within a specific timeframe. That's how it was used then and that's how it's used now. You can't go on changing its meaning when it suits you.
- All these things that Jesus prophesied haven't happened, as you point out.
- that doesn't mean that we have to change the meaning of the woah., never mind this is pointless.You win. The word generation means Jewish race, bunny rabbits or whatever else you want it to mean. Jesus wasn't wrong, he couldn't have been wrong.enjoy

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

It is not conceivable that the final manifestation of the kingdom of God should not include the glorification of the disciples. It is impossible that the climax of Christ's coming should prematurely leave out the matured and glorified disciples. Where then is the kingdom?Christ "leading many sons into glory" (Heb.2:10) is the last step of God's great salvation. His arriving alone in glory without the disciples cannot be the climax of the coming of Christ's kingdom. Therefore what the discples witness on the Mt. of Transfiguration had to have been a preview.Romans 8 tell us that God's work of grace upon His redeemed people began with His foreknowing, passed through His predestination, calling, and justification and the climax and end is with His glorifying them. Then they are fully "conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers" I think for Christ to say that some would not taste death until they saw the climax of His coming and His kingdom surely would imply that His closest diciples would enter into that glorfied state of conformation with Him. He has absolutely no ambition or desire to arrive at that majesty ALONE. If so then WHERE is the kingdom?In fact the whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. That revelation is the glorification and the manifestation of the sons of God. Creation does not await the revelation of only one Son of God but of "sons of God". Creation hopes that it too will "enter into the freedom of the glory of the children of God". Christ knew that the climax of His coming kingdom must include at least a representative group of glorified overcoming ones of the children of God and the freeing of creation into their glory. Natural calamities spoken of in Luke - the roaring of the sea, the earthquakes, etc should indicate the effect of His consummated kingdom upon the natural world.Did Jesus expect all these things to occur in the lifetime of those standing around Him? I don't think so. He says that the disciples will be hated of all nations for His name's sake first. They were no where near having begun their testimony among all nations on the earth."But before all these things they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for the sake of My name. And it will turn out to you for a testimony" (Luke 21:12,13)"Before all these things" refers to the earthquakes, great signs in heaven, famines, national wars, kingdom wars, revolutions, false Christs, and apostasy spoken of in verses 8 through 11. If Jesus thought that these would all develop within the life spans of the few in His audience I think we should see some explanation as to why it did not in the New Testament before the last of the original disciples expired.The closest thing we see to that is Peter telling us that with the Lord a thousand years is as one day and one day as a thousand years. But there is not the slightest hint of disappointment or dejection on Peter's part.Furtheremore it is hard to say that Jesus either lied or was mistaken when He plainly told the disciples that only the Father knew of the time of His second coming: The weight of the evidence I think points to Christ telling the audience that some would witness a preview of His power and coming in His kingdom in a few days. That He knew whereas He was limited by His Father from knowing the precise day and hour of the final climax of His kingdom's arrival.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have to remind myself you aren't talking about Matthew 16 anymore.

quote:

---

If the author has set the presedent for the period of time meant by the word generation, then all those things must come to pass, and the word genea obviously means something more than a period of 30-100 years, since those things have not happened, unless He is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

---

You have the option that the author or Jesus was wrong or God held off to allow more to repent.Since the author of Matthew (80-100ce) pulled this line from the Book of Mark (65-80ce)The Book of Mark is considered to be written between 65-80ce. So there is the great possibility that the author of Mark wrote during the destruction of Jerusalem, at the very least during a time of turmoil following.I think (without actually looking at historical records) that up to verse 30 probably happened in some manner, because I think the author was writing of the turmoil of the days he was living.But what about verse 26-27 of Mark 13 (Matthew 24:30-31)? If we accept that the statement in Mark 13:30 (Matthew 24:34) was accurate and everything happened before the people of the time expired, then the Son of Man already came and collected his elect. Where does that leave everyone now?

quote:

---

It is very clear in the lexicon that the word generation can mean age, or time, not just a group of people, or a certain age of a group of people.

---

Yes, the lexicon is very clear as to the possible meanings for the word genea, (Please read Message 125 and the examples given by the author of Matthew, if you haven't already.)

quote:

---

What amazes me is that, I seem to be willing to accept if I am wrong, but you and legend do not, even though I have proved that the word generation can mean something else other than a period of years 30-100.

---

Yes it can mean something other than a period of 30-33 years. It can mean a group of people living during the same period of time. But it doesn't allow for the passage of almost 2000 years. That would take the word "aion" (age) not "genea" (age). Jesus is speaking of the people of the time, probably the Jewish people (not necessarily race).

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

jaywill wrote:

quote:

---

The weight of the evidence I think points to Christ telling the audience that some would witness a preview of His power and coming in His kingdom in a few days.

---

No, it doesn't. We've discussed how that word genea only means generation. We've shown that the preceeding words of Jesus, as well as the rest of the synoptics support this. Saying that he was talking about the transfiguration does two things:1. It focuses more concern on keeping a certain doctrine than on what the Bible actually says.
2. It creates a disunity in Jesus's speech, making him look like a person with scrambled thoughts.

quote:

---

That He knew whereas He was limited by His Father from knowing the precise day and hour of the final climax of His coming kingdom's arrival.

---

What's the problem here? Jesus is clear over and over that the final judgement is coming very soon. That's practically his main point in the synoptics. He is also clear more than once that the precise day and hour are unknown. Here in Michigan, it's 44 degrees F outside this morning of Oct 24th. I don't know the precise day and hour that it'll be below 24 F, but truly I tell you, this generation will see the temperature go below 24 F. The ax is laid at the foot of the tree.Is one really Bible-based if they care more about what their priest (or apologetic website) says than what the Bible itself says?Edited by Equinox, : noticed admin note, so I removed any personal references. Sorry about that.

The lexicon, haven't you been reading my posts, or are you so caught up in only what you believe to be correct? You are still ignoring all the notes, and commentaries I posted. Why should I trust you over them?
Do you even acknowledge that the true meaning of it is undecided by some, and a conflict exists to it's true meaning? The definition of the word genea is not an absolute. Haven't you been reading my posts?
You need to take the word in context. I am not trying to make Jesus's words into anything more than what they are, you should have realized that by now, and if you were truely reading my posts, then you would know that. Stop singling me out on this thought, as there are books written and published about it, that agree with what I am presenting here. I did not say that.
I have provided what I thought the Holy Spirit was telling me, I have read what you have told me, and I have read all the notes and commentaries. I feel no reason to believe that what the Holy Spirit has told me is wrong at this point in time. The truth has shown itself again to me. But like I wrote, I am not perfect, and can be decieved, so I always remain open minded, why have you chosen to ignore what I already said, and accuse me of being closed minded?You seem to be the one with the one track mind. Now I know you haven't been reading what I posted. Maybe you should review the thread. Yes, it can mean that. Yes, and no. I have not. Maybe you are starting to understand. I guess what it will take is for these things to actually happen, then you can say that Jesus wasn't wrong.Listen, you can't say Jesus was wrong, without calling Him a liar. That's what your trying to do.At this point in time, I would be more willing to accept that the bible was written incorrectly, but I have no solid proof to believe that either.What I see is that all of you seek truth, but your looking in the wrong place. Tearing down the bible piece by piece is not going to get you a date with God. I am not saying your wrong, but I am not saying your right. But by this conversation, I can definately see who has the closed mind.

Without the "by far" I think I agree with this. You can probably tell by my previous posts the regard I have for what an incredible event the transfiguration was. Personally, I figure I've missed the obvious on interpretations so much that if I can't act it out, and thus test it and see if it works, I'm probably getting it wrong.I think the arguments, in general, that Jesus was saying there would be some sort of return before AD 70 or so are obviously valid arguments. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple did happen during that generation's lifetime, so why didn't the rest of Matt 24 happen then?I think the Bible is a spiritual book (and I most certainly don't think Jesus was just a man), so I'm pretty comfortable with pretty far out, allegorical interpretations. However, I also don't believe the Bible's inerrant, or that God's much interested in its inerrancy, and there's certainly lots of things I don't understand about it--including the whole issue of genocide and wild tribal peoples sweeping through villages burning and pillaging with God's consent.However, when we swing all the way back to one tiny, little subject, that of Matt 16:28, it doesn't seem all impossible or even extremely unlikely that the author was trying to tie it and the transfiguration together. The transfiguration is a pretty awesome event that completely dissolved the veil between this realm and that one. Since I've had numerous experiences that I consider to be times when the veil between realms was really thin, and those make you shudder and look at the whole world differently, it's easy for me to be okay with the tie between a more awesome overlapping of the Realms like the transfiguration being a potent taste of the coming of God's kingdom in power.

When you talk about what the Bible actually says you are talking in such restricted terms as only wanting to include what supports your contention. I showed you many verses of what the Bible actually says which you intend to ignore completely.The Bible actually says that Jesus did not know the day or the hour of His coming, neither the angels knew, but only the Father (Luke 24:36). Why are you not concerned with what it actually says there in the synopotic Luke? Instead you ignore it and put forth the idea that He knew that the time of His second coming would fall within the lifetime of some in His audience. I don’t think so. I think of the many things Jesus said we have a selection of certainly a minority of those things said. With those portions of His teaching and the aid of the other speakers in the New Testament we try to put the puzzle together to ascertain as much as God will permit His meaning.Concerning what the Bible actually says, it actually says that no guile was found in the mouth of Jesus (1 Peter 2:22). How come I see no zealous concern for what the Bible actually says from you in this passage?Where is Peter’s clarification that Jesus misled them? Where is there a hint that the disciples are disheartened because He has not returned yet? You talking about me or yourself?I haven’t gone to one website in this entire discussion. I have opened my Bible. And where I meet we practice the priesthood of all believers. We do not practice a clerical system.As far as the second coming being soon, I think that when He comes most people will feel that it is too soon rather than too late, particularly the ones who accuse the Son of God of being a liar.As far as God’s view of soon we have Peter’s clarification:”But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8,9)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

OK, I'm a little confused, between Jaywill and RR, there seem to be two fundamentalist explanations of the verse. One is that Jesus meant the transfiguration, so by saying "generation", he meant generation. The other fundamentalist explanation is that "generation" actually means "race" or "nation", so then Jesus WASN'T referring to the transfiguration.So my question is - do the fundamentalists who think that Jesus was talking about the transfiguration condemn the other fundamentalists for changing the meaning of the word "generation"? And conversely, do the fundamentalists who change the word "generation" into "race" condemn the others for changing the text of the Bible to refer to the transfiguration?Sometimes it seems that Fundamentalist Christians give other fundamentalist Christians a free pass, while they'll object to the same behavior in anyone else. Is that the case here? For instance, Here RR is arguing that "genea" doesn't mean "generation", so Jesus is referring the 2nd coming, which hasn't happened yet. So does RR join us in objecting to the transfigurationists who say that Jesus's statement of Mt 16:28 has indeed come true already, as Jaywill states?Oh, and I came across this great summary of the whole "genea" thing:I can find "genea" meaning "race" if I look specifically at Christian apologetics sources - as RR points out.The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

You are still ignoring all the notes, and commentaries I posted. Why should I trust you over them?

---

Legend and I aren't ignoring them. I've read them all - I just don't find them convincing. I've also read the whole book of Mormon - just because I'm not Mormon doesn't mean I'm ignoring it - it just means that it's not a solid argument. RR, I'm sure that you too have read things that you didn't ignore, but that you found unconvincing.It's not about "trusting legend" - it's about the evidence, and the words in the Bible.

quote:

---

Do you even acknowledge that the true meaning of it is undecided by some, and a conflict exists to it's true meaning?

​

and...

​

there are books written and published about it, that agree with what I am presenting here.

---

That's another fallacy to add to the list. Yes, there are many who take either the race line or the transfiguration line (or both simultaneusly - which I haven't figured out yet, other than it seems to be a complete abandonment of all logical thought). But the fact that those people exist doesn't mean they are right or even that the evidence isn't clear. There are thousands and thousands of people who sincerely believe that the sun goes around the earth. Does that mean that the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is weak? Of course not.Lastly - I thought you were going by the voices you heard inside, not human knowledge (that's how you knew you were right). A blend of the two is understandable - I'd also test internal voices if I heard/felt them.

quote:

---

You need to take the word (genea) in context.

---

well, sure - that's what legend has done over and over. The verse immediately before is talking about the 2nd coming, for instance.

quote:

---

Listen, you can't say Jesus was wrong, without calling Him a liar. That's what your trying to do.

---

Sure you can. My mother told me it was going to be sunny once, and it rained. I don't think my mom lied to me, she made a mistake by reading the weather report for the wrong day. Einstein rejected QM saying "God does not play dice with the Universe". He was wrong - QM has been repeatedly confirmed. Did Newton lie with his whole "gravity" thing? Of course not - even though it is not completely correct, since it ignores QM. Being wrong is not lying.

quote:

---

At this point in time, I would be more willing to accept that the bible was written incorrectly, but I have no solid proof to believe that either.

---

Accepting the overwhelming evidence that the Bible contains human contributions is perfectly compatible with many forms of Christianity. Seeing the Bible as containing some errors will preserve your faith, where as plugging your ears to the evidence of the errors may lead to a big eventual breakdown. There's lots of other well known evidence, such as the historical errors or the stories known to be added (such as the woman caught in adultery Jn8). But those are a topic for another thread.PS - just noticed jaywill's edit to add the 2Pet line. 2Pet is a topic for a whole other thread, since scholars (Christian and non-christian) agree that 2 Pet wasn't written by Peter, as jaywill claims, but rather is a later forgery (a pseudepigraph). A good overview of that discussion is here:
2 PeterHave a fun day--EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : added 2pet comment.Edited by Equinox, : fixed 2 pet attribution - I had on first glance thought that was written by RR.

Hi-Hey, this was posted while I wrote the other, so I'll respond to a few comments here.The lukan verse I talked about in an earlier post - if you know it'll happen this generation you still may not know the day and hour, just as I know it will get below 24degrees F this winter, but don't know the day and the hour of that.The 1 pet verse fits anyway since lying is not the same as being wrong. Even if the 2nd coming does come tomorrow, then Jesus would still be wrong, since it didn't happen in the generation he said it would happen in. Either way he wouldn't be a liar.have a fun day--Equinox

The source of confusion is that two separate sub-topics are being pursued in parallel here.Riverrat and myself are debating the meaning of the "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." verse, as it appears in the Eschatological discourse( Matt 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32).At the same time, the rest of us are still on the verses that sparked the OP, namely Matt 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."I originally brought the two passages together as I think they're referring to the one and same thing.hope this clears things up Oh, BTW, your link confirms what I've been saying all along: "genea" may mean 'race' in Christian apologetics lingo but not in the Greek language!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

If Jesus was wrong (lying or not) where is the discussion by the apostles in Acts, or in the epistles, or in Revelation, or anywhere correcting for, apologizing for, or otherwise making up for the misspeaking?Would you present your evidence that any of the early disciples noticed the error that you think you notice?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I've reviewed the thread and I can't find a single reference to Greek texts or any other evidence that shows how the definition of the word "genea" had a broader meaning back then than it does now.Please point out the posts where you've substantiated this claim.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

We've been through this before. By the time that error became obvious the disciples were dead and buried and the gospels were in circulation.The easiest way to deal with the error at that stage was to do what you're doing now. Pretend that Jesus meant something else to what he said.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."