This Generation Shall Not Pass Until All be Fulfilled

[Kenneth White]

Excuse is a good word for it Erik. They're really saying, it doesn't really matter what God said, he was just kidding or embellishing the story.

No, I do't think so. You would think that when Christians find that their beliefs don't really match what was said in scripture, they would change their beliefs. But instead they try and change what was said in scripture to fit their beliefs. That is the most disturbing part of all this.

[Tony Warren]

>>>
Well then how do you explain Christ saying to his that generation, his contemporaries, he was a sign.
<<<

I explain it by a sound, consistent, harmonious, logical reading of the text, in context, and in full agreement with all that He said. That He was a sign to that family or generation of vipers. A sign that He s the prophesied Messiah and that the Kingdom had come. Let me ask you a question. How do you explain Christ saying in one verse to one contemporary generation that there will be no sign given, and in the very next verse say He was a sign to a generation? Contradiction? Not at all.

Luke 11:29-30

• "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
• For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation."

No sign given but ([ei me], if not or saving) the sign of His death and resurrection. So a sign was given, but that generation that were blinded could not see it, while the disciples and election would see the sign that was given. One holy generation receiving the Word of the Spirit who gives it, and the other generation rejecting it by the spirit of disobedience. Christ says of the sign, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. ...to what Generation? The Generation that seeks signs when no sign shall be given? No, the generation who have eyes to see the sign of Jonas as a type of Christ unto the Ninevites. The death and resurrection of Christ is indeed a sign to His holy generation (1st Peter 2:9), His family, the chosen children of His Father. An evil and adulterous "family" seeks after signs to support their religion, and they aren't given signs. Yet Christ says there is indeed a sign given, which is His resurrection (as the Holy Temple) after its destruction. Contradiction? No, not at all--because the evil family or generation are the children of the Devil and they don't see the sign because God has not given them eyes to see. And yet another contemporary and everlasting generation or family does see the sign, as they are the children of God. Again, a portrait of two families or [genea], but only one generation that recognizes the sign of the resurrection of the Temple in Christ. The destruction and rebuilding is not found in Jewish fables of rebuilding of physical structures in the middle east, and placement of worldly or political kings, but spiritual cities, Kingdoms and Rulers.

>>>
Obviously generation meant those people who were there in Jerusalem and would be there for the next 40 years.
<<<

What seems obvious to one is not always apparent to others, and quite often easily refutable--like the idea of a pretribulation rapture, a reestablished kingdom of middle eastern Israel or the nation of middle eastern Jews bearing fruit again.  It may seem obvious in theory, but Scripture is a lot more complicated in practice, especially when one is determined to read into it rather than from it.  For example, it seemed "quite obvious" to the Jews that Christ spoke to and said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," that He was referring to the literal Temple. After all, He had just thrown the buyers and sellers out of it and they were asking Him for a sign that he had the "authority" to do this. It's in that context that He said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Which is why they "responded" saying that this Temple took forty six years to build, and how would Christ build it again in just 3 days? Clearly, the seemingly obvious to them that Christ was speaking about that very literal/physical Temple, was not what Christ was actually speaking about at all. so look beyond what "seems" obvious, or what "appears" right in your own eyes, to what Christ is actually saying. Look to what is actually being addressed, what is correct, consistent, sound, Spiritual and in harmony with the rest of the Bible.

Psalms 12:7

• "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

What single group or contemporary people to what time or generation of man are we preserved from forever? None! Only the generation of the wicked, and "NOT" a one-off contemporary evil group of people at one time. The generation of the wicked will exist right up until the end, when all things will have been fulfilled. We (the election, or family of faithful Christians) are all preserved from this evil generation forever. It is clear that the word generation did not mean all of those people were a 40 year span generation of evil, nor did Christ use the word that way. Likewise, the people over 2000 years ago in Israel were not all a generation that would not be given a sign, nor were all a generation that the blood of able and the prophets that followed would be required of. Only the generation or family of evil would be given no sign. They are the only generation Christ that Christ prophesied could not escape the damnation of Hell. It didn't mean a group living in a 40 year span, it meant that family who are children of the Devil.

>>>
What does a generation mean there?
<<<

It means a family, a kindred, a seed, a stock, a group of people with a common ancestor or father. Genea from [genos] or family, a group common descent.

Phillipians 3:5

• "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;"

It's a family relationship, a stock or kindred or generation of evil versus a generation of Holiness.

1st Peter 2:9

• "But ye are a chosen generation [genea], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

Is God's children of the 40 years Peter was addressing the only chosen generation, or Is Peter declaring a chosen family that reaches to the election today? That is the question, and the answer is obvious. ..at least to those handling Scripture honestly. The elect are a chosen family, a holy family, a special family, a peculiar family, called out from the wicked and adulterous family, the generation of vipers. One family shall no sign be given, the other family sees it as the sign of Jonah, Christ's resurrection from the dead.

>>>
"For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation."
Luke 11:30

A generation is 40 years.
<<<

Let's test that theory. Let's change the word generation to 40 years. ...so shall also the Son of man be to this 40 years. No, doesn't make sense. Now try family. ...so shall also the Son of man be to this family. What family? The family that sees Jonas as a sign, not the family that no sign will be given because it is an evil and adulterous family. The only sign that's given is the sign that they cannot see because they don't accept authority of Scripture. This is the magnificent salvation program of Christ. Selah. Consider when Christ contrasted the family of God with the family of the devil He said that they were wiser than were in a certain way.

Luke 16:8

• "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."

Does that make sense if we say the children of this world in their 40 years are wiser? Or is it clear God is referring to them as a carnal worldly family? Generation there means their clan or family relationship as children of the Devil rather than children of light. Again, God illustrating two distinct types of children--two families [genea], translated as generations.

>>>
A generation is 40 years.
<<<

A generation is not forty years. Though I've heard Pastors say it's 40, 70, 80, 100 and on down the line, depending upon what verse they wanted to attempt to fit their teachings. All by carelessly handling scriptures using those numbers as a bridge. In reality, anyone who can add can readily see that a generation does not "mean" 40 years. e.g.:

Matthew 1:17

• "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

It doesn't add up, and if it doesn't add up precisely, it is clearly not true. Q.E.D., a generation is clearly not 40 years. Any careful study of Scripture will confirm this. Again:

Genesis 15:12-16

• "And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
• And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
• And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
• And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
• But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."

If you can count  generation as forty years (4 times 40) and still come up with 400 years, you are a magician. Clearly, a generation is decidedly "NOT" 40 years. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error in any sound exegesis.
 
Matthew 1:1

• "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The word generation there means family, as in a family history or register, not 40 years for each. It obviously cannot be 40 years for each Patriarch mentioned.

"nosce te ipsum"
 

Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

[Tony Warren]

>>>
Because someone said it's an exaggeration, we don't have to understand it as not one stone on top of another? Wow, this is acceptable?
<<<

No, it is absolutely not acceptable. And yet, it is to so many professing Christians of our day, and not just Premillennarians or Dispensationalists. Not to mention the fact that they select to concentrate on the Temple prophesy and usually completely ignore the same prophesy of the whole city of Jerusalem not one stone should be left standing. Of course that's because they cannot even begin to claim not one stone was left standing one upon another in the city of Jerusalem, as even the staunchest advocates of this theory won't deny that. The fact is, if stones were left standing one upon another in the city of Jerusalem, then the prophesy fails. If many, many, many stones were left standing one upon another, then their theory fails miserably!!! Either Christ made a mistake or (as you say) the prophecy was never meant to be of physical stones or the very literal city of Jerusalem. One or the other, but not both.

Lamentations 4:1-2

• "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
• The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!"

Literal stones? Most certainly not. But God uses the stones of the sanctuary as representatives of the people of His congregation. Nothing has changed under the sun, we are still to interpret Scripture by Scripture, but many ave lost their way and choose Josephus as the final arbiter of truth rather than God's Word.

>>>
why does scripture talk about a rebuilding at Pentecost? Just use your head, that's all we ask.
<<<

Scripture talks about a rebuilding at Pentecost because that is when the church was instituted, commissioned and the Spirit poured out to assure its construction. The question people should ask is, a rebuilding of what? It is self evident that you can't rebuild what has not already been thrown down. It's not rocket science. Wjhat was being rebuilt is a City and a Temple, but not with physical stones, because those thrown down were not physical stones, and Christ the foundation stone of it was not a literal/Physical/earthly foundation  or Corner stone. It's simply a matter of seeing clearly or being unable to see things clearly.

Mark 8:23-25

• "And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
• And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
• After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly."

Revelation 7:3

• "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."

We will see men as trees walking until we have it revealed that the trees are "actually" men walking, who have not been sealed (secured) of God. Through the Revelation of Christ, when we look up we will we see every tree clearly as a man, with only those sealed having true safety from the plagues of God. We can then say, where I once was blind seeing only trees, now I see the true reality and interpretation of the vision. It's all up to God who understands the stones as men falling, and who will continue to see them as mere physical stones knocked down by Romans.

If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you might say unto a sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root and be planted in the sea, and it would obey you. Is that faith to judge a physical tree, or something infinitely more important? Even as Christ said to the Fig tree, let no more fruit grow on you forever. Is God merely cursing a tree, or is He declaring that tree "represented" Israel whom He came to seeking fruit, and there was none? 

>>>
And the generation that destroyed the city and sanctuary?
<<<

Daniel 9:26

• "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Michael and His Messengers at war wit the messengers of Evil, where His own people destroyed both city and sanctuary when they rejected and killed Christ. It is this generation or family of evil that was left desolate because of their abominations. Which is why Christ said to that wicked family,

Matthew 23:33-38

• "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
• Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
• That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
• Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
• O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Clearly, the generation or family He spoke about was Jerusalem. Not literal bricks or stones, but the people, the people of this prince, His people of the Old Testament congregation. Christ is talking to a family of vipers who have murdered His chosen since Cain murdered Able in the beginning, not a physical city. This is the family that destroyed city and sanctuary and the people or family who it will be required of.

>>>
And the generation that destroyed the city and sanctuary?
<<<

Read it again;

Daniel 9:26

• "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

I am being redundant because I never know when it may finally sink in that the city and sanctuary that was destroyed was not made of physical stones, rocks or bricks, but are the wicked who were judged. God has no interest in judging inanimate objects and laying them even with the ground. It's the people of His congregation who were totally destroyed, left in ruins, made totally desolate because of their abominations. A new congregation was established on better promises, the old never to rise again, despite the objections of apologists.

"nosce te ipsum"
 

Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

[Tony Warren]

>>>
It doesn't need to fit, it's a hyperbole.
<<<

Translation: Yes it's inconsistent and contradictory, but because I can't make it fit, I'll just claim Christ ddn't mean it "literally" He was exaggerating.

Which means He was overstating or magnifying beyond the limits of truth, making it seem worse than it really was. Because that's what a hyperbole is, an exaggeration. May I remind you that Christ is the very living Word of God, the very personification of truth. Thus, for any Bible believing Christian, when Christ says that not one stone would be left standing one upon another in the city of Jerusalem and the Temple, you can be absolutely sure that in some way, "NOT ONE STONE" was left standing one upon another. Thus the Old Testament city of Jerusalem and its temple was laid even with the ground where it simply doesn't exist anymore as the Lord's house, as the Holy City, as the Holy Temple or as the Holy Kingdom of God on earth. Every stone of it was thrown down. The Kingdom has all been taken from His people and given to aother. Christ is the head cornerstone of a New Testament building, a New Jerusalem, a New Covenant with Israel, a New Holy Temple, with both Jews and Gentiles as the lively or living stiones of that rebuilding. It absolutely does need to fit, and it does, proving it's not a hyperbole. It's the truth exactly as prophesied.

Ephesians 2:19-22

• "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
• And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
• In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
• In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

There is your rebuilding. There is your Holy Temple. There are the stones of this rebuilding of the Temple. Not as the Zionists suppose, but as God always prophesied. Do you know what the term "fitly framed" in that verse means? It means joined closely together like a glove. i.e., it fits perfectly! It means stones placed precisely, exactly, so as to fit together seamlessly. Contrast that with your humanistic easoning that His words don't have to fit "exactly" the prophecy of the stones of this City and Temple. God says the stones fit snugly and grows into the Holy Temple. How much more His word that in the previous building, not one stone would be left standing one upon another would fit perfectly? Selah.

>>>
It just needs to be explained so you can understand it,
<<<

Correct, and the explanation comes from God's Holy word, not from the rantings of Tony Warren, not from the book of John Walvoord, not from the musings of Martin Luther and not from the exaggerations of Josephus. God's word is clear on the matter of the destroying of the Temple by destroying Him as its chief corner stone, and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple of God stone upon stone, Christ, apostles, saints.

1st Corinthians 3:9-13

• "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
• According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
• For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
• Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
• Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is."

We in the New Covenant dispensation are the stones of the Temple rebuilding. Not as Dispensationalists imagine a rebuilt Holy Temple of Israel, but as God always intended.

>>>
and Dr. John Walvoord does an excellent job of that.
<<<

I'm very familiar with is books and I'm sorry to say that the late Dr. John J. Walvoord did an excellent job of ignoring Scriptures and avoiding difficult contradictions to his theories about Israel and the church. Again, we should go to the source for explanations, not to men. As righteous Joseph:

Genesis 40:8

• "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

Doesn't interpretations belong to God? Yes, they do. So the question is, How does God define stones of the Temple and how does God define the church as a chosen generation and how does God define the rebuilding of the city and Temple and with what corner stone? These are the pertinent questions. Not whether Josephus is a honest reprobate historian or not to be able to authoritatively interpret Scripture for us.

>>>
What you don't understand is that all the stones didn't need to be thrown down,
<<<

According to Scripture, not only did they need to be thrown down, but they were. The people (who were the stones of this city) were devastated so that not one of them remained standing.

John 2:19

• "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

The applicatory question should be, did the Jews destroy the Holy Temple as Christ prophesied here they would, was it a sign as Christ answered them in request for one, when was this destruction of the Temple Christ spoke of, and how was this Temple risen again in three days gain fulfilling Cjhrist's prophesy? The cornerstone of their Temple was destroyed "signifying" their desolation, and it was raised up again in 3 days a cornerstone of a New Temple.

Moreover, you can't rebuild a Temple and city until the old ones are destroyed. I ask you honestly, by whose authority do you hypothesize that it didn't have to be true that not one stone would be left standing on top of another in the City and Holy Sanctuary? You cannot just usurp authority of God's word simply because you can't "make it fit" your personal opinions about fulfilled prophesy.

>>>
it's enough that the city was in ruins and the historical record shows it was destroyed.
<<<

It's enough for the careless, but not enough for God who declares that there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Look at the example of God speaking about His congregation as spiritually Babylon, and note the language of it being "thrown down" like a great millstone and never being found again. Now that's what you would call total destruction that cannotbe repaired, as was the Old Testament Holy City of Jerusalem and the Temple thereof. It's "obviously" the exact same message of desolation of the Lord's congregation, not of a physical or literal Great city.

Revelation 18:21

• "And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all."

Just as God says this great city will be thrown down and none of it to be found ever again, so the great city of Jerusalem was thrown down, and not one stone remaining there. Very same principle of the desolation of God's people because of their abominations.

Of course, you and I can do this dance until the cows come home, but God's word cannot be adulterated. The bottom line is that I didn't say not one stone, Christ said that. I am merely faithfully testifying to "exactly" what He declared. By contrast, I can't be accused of taking away from it one single word in any sense, but you can. My point being, God's word is the authority, not our changing the meaning of it.  If you have a problem with the word of accuracy in "not one stone left standing upon another,"  take it up with the author.

>>>
The problem with you liberal, amillennialist, reformers is that you reject God's people Israel and their restoration.
<<<

The problem with "us Liberal Reformers" is that we won't blindly follow Dispensationalist, Reformed, Catholic or Evangelical leaders, choosing instead to faithfully follow the "actual" word of the living God itself. I'm sure this torments many to no end, however their torment is not going to keep us from witnessing to the testimony of Christ. For in TRUTH, it's not us liberal, amillennialist, reformers that reject God's people Israel and their restoration (as you charge), it's the Dispensational Zionists that are rejecting truth.

>>>
Here's what John said about that...
<<<

Never mind John. We have a more sound "authority" to go to, so here's what God says about it:

Galatians 3:28

• "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11

• "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Ephesians 2:11-22

• "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
• That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
• But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
• For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
• Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
• And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
• And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
• For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
• Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
• And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
• In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
• In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

You see, we not only read all of that, we actually believe it. Not with mere lip service to it while effectively denyingit, but in the faith of Christ where we see it as actually true.

"nosce te ipsum"
 

Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

[Tony Warren]

>>>
Excuse is a good word for it Erik.
<<<

It certainly is. Excuse, justification, pretext, rationalisation, the bottom line is it's all just subterfuge. Anything to evade having to accept what is clearly written concerning the positioning of "all" the stones. Handling the word of God deceitfully is changing or corrupting the word by mixing it with humanism or worldly inventions, maybe even the babblings of Josephus, anything in order to make it acceptable to those who will not receive a divine interpretation directly from the Spirit in authority of the Scriptures. i.e., stones not as the world defines them, but as God all through His own word has defineed them. 70 A.D. is an excuse not to believe the Spirit, not a fulfillment of the word. A evil and unfaithful generation seeks excuses not to believe all the stones of the Old Testament City and Temple WERE thrown down, that the City and Temple could be rebuilt in the New Testament dispensation. These worldly things like Temples, Cities and Holy rooms were "types" signifying things far more important than stones, lampstands and physical tabernacles.

Hebrews 9:8-10

• "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
• Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
• Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

Stone, temples, tabernacles, animal scarifices, cities, Kingdoms, candlesticks, etc., these were all types, figures, tokens of something far more important than animal blood, a Temple or a King like David. These were all types, a type wherein the Old Testament economy is represented by the Old Testament Holy Temple, and the New by the New Testament Holy Temple. The first had to fall FIRST  in order for the second to start building. This is the Spiritual nature of the whole Bible, that unfortunately many Christians blind themselves to. Christ came as the building Stone for Israel, but was rejected and destroyed (John 2:19) where "that" Holy Temple representation was thrown down and not one stone left, and Christ became the foundation stone of the New Testament church, and the New Testament Jews are the stones built upon Him. Part of the mystery is that this was always as intended.

>>>
They're really saying, it doesn't really matter what God said, he was just kidding or embellishing the story.
<<<

Absolutely. They are saying you don't have to pay attention to the details or specifics, let's just deal in flexible generalities so we don't have to accept the infallible authority of clear statements. They want to deal in bromide instead of sound exegesis. That's not the humble, more noble honesty of the Bereans. That is just the opposite mentality.

2nd Corinthians 4:2

• "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

There are the noble/honest Bereans who receive God's word as authoritative and thus through faith "believe" and follow it, and then there are those who unrighteously twist God's word to suit their own personal beliefs in order that they may lead it.

>>>
You would think that when Christians find that their beliefs don't really match what was said in scripture, they would change their beliefs.
<<<

The "truth" is, Christians do. Now, later, eventually, whenever, they actually do. For the Spirit of truth is within them, and the Spirit is vexed by deceit and rejection of truth. I know so many modern progressive Christians don't like to hear that because of their misguided ideas ofd Christian love, but in reality, those always offended by truth cannot be of truth. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Matthew 24:10-11

• "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
• And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

The scenario has not changed and will not change. "Many" who are offended by the truth erroneously call truth self-righteousness, a lack of love, a lack of compassion or "just your opinion." But truth doesn't have to defend itself. You're right, you would think that when Christians find that their beliefs don't really match what was said in scripture, they would change their beliefs. ...and they do. Today, tomorrow, when ever, they do. But among the sheep there are goats and wolves in sheep's clothing.

>>>
But instead they try and change what was said in scripture to fit their beliefs. That is the most disturbing part of all this.
<<<

Those who try and change what was said in Scripture to fit their beliefs are departing from the faith and are on the path to desolation. Yes, it is truly disturbing, which is why faithful Christians mourn for them, pray for them and witness to them in hopes that God might have mercy and help their unbelief.

Hebrews 3:12-13

• "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
• But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

"nosce te ipsum"
 

Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

[Melanie]

  Exceptional! Thanks! 

[Melanie]

>>>
The problem with you liberal, amillennialist, reformers is that you reject God's people Israel and their restoration.
<<<

The problem with "us Liberal Reformers" is that we won't blindly follow Dispensationalist, Reformed, Catholic or Evangelical leaders, choosing instead to faithfully follow the "actual" word of the living God itself.

Is this not the 20th time I've heard someone who clearly can't defend their own positions with sound arguments resort to calling Bible-believing Christians liberals? Just who do they think they're fooling? It's like Trump tweeting something outlandish or controversial in order to detract or distract from what are legitimate questions. Tony's questions are legitimate questions. I believe that this tactic only works on brainwashed and uneducated people. Granted, there are a lot of brainwashed and uneducated Christians  , but not a lot of them here. So don't waste your efforts with that.

But people who know the Bible don't fall for those types of red herrings. And that's all it is. The issue is what does the Bible say about this, not who is a liberal, amillennial or reformed.

[ZeroCool]

Granted, there are a lot of brainwashed and uneducated Christians  , but not a lot of them here.

  From all I've learned on this forum, that's a true statement. A lot of people knowledgeable in scripture here. No televangelist yarns or prayer cloth theology preached here.

George,
"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." Isaiah 34:16

It didn't fail that not one stone would remain that isn't thrown down, it all came to pass.  I love the Bible.

[Lieberman]

The problem with you liberal, amillennialist, reformers is that you reject God's people Israel and their restoration.

Melanie, You are correct!

Red Herring

George has no serious answers to serious questions to him, and like Fred, his partner in Dispensational crimes, never has.

[Manuel]

I read this quote on ebible and wanted to know  some opinions on its verasity.

     "in regards to Matthew 24:34 it my belief that when Jesus said 'this generation' that he meant
      'that generation' - When reading the bible it's critical to first try and understand it from a first
      century understanding or in other words what did it mean to the people who were listening to
      Jesus speak."

From what I am reading in this thread, it would seen many disagree that this generation referred to the people of that generation. Am I correct in this? If so, how do you reconcile that with normal historical grammatical understanding?

[Pearson]

From what I am reading in this thread, it would seen many disagree that this generation referred to the people of that generation.

[Soapbox mode on]

No, the bible is always true.  It does refer to the people of that generation, but not all the people were of that generation. You probably just glanced through, but I would suggest you should read this whole thread and also the article by Tony Warren which explains it. The link in the thread is old and broken, but here is the correct link.

http://www.mountain-retreat.org/faq/generation.shtml

This is the only explanation I've found that passes the smell test and is consistent with everything in the bible.

Am I correct in this? If so, how do you reconcile that with normal historical grammatical understanding?

I don't see how it would be problematic. This generation refers to a geno or family. The generation of vipers that Christ kept talking about. The viper is Satan and these wicked people were his family or generation.

Matthew 12:34
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

Their hearts were desperately wicked because they were the children of Satan.

John 8:44
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

It has nothing to do with time, but with Satan's family, the generation of vipers or evil.



Just My two cents

[Soapbox mode off]

[Manuel]

Thank you Pearson for your reply. I have now read the link and it is a possibility. Still, don't you think that it sounds like the sentence is more normal saying "this generation shall not pass," meaning the generation that is there at that present time? Or if you will, the family that was there st that present time.

[Pearson]

Still, don't you think that it sounds like the sentence is more normal saying "this generation shall not pass," meaning the generation that is there at that present time?

[Soapbox mode on]
What is normal? To me, it's not normal to say this wicked generation and refer to all the Jews living in Israel. Especially when Christ calls those who follow him his faithful sheep who shall not see this judgment of the blood of Abel upon that generation. So what is normal language? Is it normal language for Christ to call his Apostles a generation of vipers? I would say absolutely not. So that precludes them from being that generation of vipers. Isn't that correct? Confirming there is more than one generation involved here.


Just My two cents

[Soapbox mode off]

[Rich Aikers]

Look at it this way Manuel. It is saying this generation shall not pass and it is talking about a family there at that time. The fact that Christ says until all be fulfilled means that generation would last until the return of Christ. That is the only time when all will be fulfilled. Particularly the things he was talking about.

[Manuel]

Look at it this way Manuel. It is saying this generation shall not pass and it is talking about a family there at that time. The fact that Christ says until all be fulfilled means that generation would last until the return of Christ. That is the only time when all will be fulfilled. Particularly the things he was talking about.

Oh, you mean everything in the Bible? That's when all will be fulfilled. Oh that makes sense I guess.