This generation shall not pass

[ForHisglory]

This is where I believe you go wrong. If you start with the normal meaning of "generation" it would make sense to you.

Actually IF you start with the NORMAL meaning of "generation" THEN I would understand that Jesus had returned 2,000 years ago - which is a NONSENSE.
If I started with a NORMAL meaning of "generation" then I would throw your idea out the window because you do NOT use the NORMAL meaning of the word.
You use an uncommon usage, and so do I.

I know that because it honestly makes sense to me. I don't have to do acrobatic flips to do this. It *naturally* makes sense to me if I begin with a normal understanding of "generation," meaning the lifetime of a person. Jesus was answering the question "when will the temple fall" with the answer: it will fall in "this generation." That is a very natural way to look at it. And from history we know that it's true. The temple fell in the lifetime of those who heard Jesus predict this event!

Actually you do multiple back flips and all sorts of contortions to try to make your ABNORMAL usage of the word "generation" fit.
The NORMAL usage of the word "generation" does NOT mean "the lifetime of a person". It is NOT natural way to look at it. It is an allowable, possible way, which when examined is found to be completely wrong.

However I disagree that your methodology is correct. You are focusing on one word and then trying to make everything revolve around that one word. I don't. I look for the meaning contained in the whole Discourse. I then work through various words which may point in different directions. I then come to a conclusion as to the meaning of the passage. After that I then look at similar passages and see what those passages mean in isolation first, and then in comparison.

Your methodology is basically broken.

[randyk]

Actually IF you start with the NORMAL meaning of "generation" THEN I would understand that Jesus had returned 2,000 years ago - which is a NONSENSE.
If I started with a NORMAL meaning of "generation" then I would throw your idea out the window because you do NOT use the NORMAL meaning of the word.
You use an uncommon usage, and so do I.

No, I use "generation" in its common use. I just don't include the 2nd Coming in the things that are to be included in it. That's *your* claim--not mine. The Church Fathers viewed the punishment of the AoD upon the Jews to be in the generation that crucified Christ. That is the meaning of generation: the lifetime of a man, which in this case, is in the lifetime of those living in the time of Christ's death. It was a judgment upon the generation of Christ, ie the men and women, and their children, alive in the time Christ was crucified, because most all of them rejected him.

Actually you do multiple back flips and all sorts of contortions to try to make your ABNORMAL usage of the word "generation" fit.
The NORMAL usage of the word "generation" does NOT mean "the lifetime of a person". It is NOT natural way to look at it. It is an allowable, possible way, which when examined is found to be completely wrong.

However I disagree that your methodology is correct. You are focusing on one word and then trying to make everything revolve around that one word. I don't. I look for the meaning contained in the whole Discourse. I then work through various words which may point in different directions. I then come to a conclusion as to the meaning of the passage. After that I then look at similar passages and see what those passages mean in isolation first, and then in comparison.

Your methodology is basically broken.

You will never win by insult, brother. No, "generation" means *the lifetime of a person.* That is a normal, accepted use of the word. To use the word as a "kind" of people, or "race" of people, is idiosyncratic and unfit for this passage. I strongly disagree with you. The word is indeed so certain in my thinking that yes, I can build my theory around the normal meaning of the word as within 40 years of Jesus' death.

Some use the word "generation" for a future generation that will see Christ's Return. This, at least, is the proper use of the word "generation," referring to the lifetime of a person. However, this cannot be a future generation since Jesus was clearly referring to *his own* generation, to "this generation."

[ForHisglory]

No, I use "generation" in its common use.

No you do NOT!
The common use is for noting the difference between father and son. They are of a different generation. From this we also get the idea of those born at the time of the Father are of the Father's generation.

I just don't include the 2nd Coming in the things that are to be included in it. That's *your* claim--not mine. The Church Fathers viewed the punishment of the AoD upon the Jews to be in the generation that crucified Christ. That is the meaning of generation: the lifetime of a man, which in this case, is in the lifetime of those living in the time of Christ's death. It was a judgment upon the generation of Christ, ie the men and women, and their children, alive in the time Christ was crucified, because most all of them rejected him.

That is because you CHANGE the qualifier for the word "All". If you could provide the words IN Luke and Matthew which you are using for your qualifier...
NO ECF said that, it is SOLELY YOUR interpretation of what they were saying.

You will never win by insult, brother. No, "generation" means *the lifetime of a person.* That is a normal, accepted use of the word. To use the word as a "kind" of people, or "race" of people, is idiosyncratic and unfit for this passage. I strongly disagree with you. The word is indeed so certain in my thinking that yes, I can build my theory around the normal meaning of the word as within 40 years of Jesus' death.

Nope, that is NOT the "normal" meaning. It is a possible meaning of the word, but I have never heard or read it used in general usage nor in medical or biological. In fact in scripture it is not the normal usage either.

Some use the word "generation" for a future generation that will see Christ's Return. This, at least, is the proper use of the word "generation," referring to the lifetime of a person. However, this cannot be a future generation since Jesus was clearly referring to *his own* generation, to "this generation."

Nope, those who see it as a future generation do NOT see it as referring to the lifetime of a person.
They are also wrong to think about it as they do even when they may use it in its more normal way.

[randyk]

No you do NOT!
The common use is for noting the difference between father and son. They are of a different generation. From this we also get the idea of those born at the time of the Father are of the Father's generation.

That is an incredibly naïve statement! If you're talking about the difference between a father and a son, then this position agrees with me that it has to do with the lifetime of a person, and not some ambiguous meaning like "race" or "kind of people." The difference between a father and a son is the difference between the lifetime of the father and the lifetime of the son. I don't think anybody would disagree with me if I said that after my two sons are born and get into middle age, which they are, that there aren't still people alive in *my generation!* This has become a foolish discussion. It is standard to understand the distinction between seeing Jesus discuss "this generation" as either his own or a future generation.

That is because you CHANGE the qualifier for the word "All". If you could provide the words IN Luke and Matthew which you are using for your qualifier...
NO ECF said that, it is SOLELY YOUR interpretation of what they were saying.

Yes, conversations are not designed to address your idiosyncratic hypothetical problems with how Jesus meant to convey these things. The Discourse simply spells out the major issue in the Discourse, which is the 70 AD destruction of the temple, and then expects you, the reader, to understand what fits where.

The "qualifier," therefore, is assumed by the established theme of the Discourse. Bringing up a distant event like the 2nd Coming does not remove the initial focus upon "this generation" and the 70 AD destruction of the temple. Bringing up the stars falling from the sky, and the 2nd Coming, in no way is included in this initial focus upon the destruction of the temple in "this generation." So yes, we have a qualifier, in the sense that Jesus was answering questions primarily about *when* the 70 AD destruction would take place. The answer was, it will take place in "this generation," which we clearly see was fulfilled in 70 AD. And Luke's version in ch. 21 makes this abundantly clear.

Nope, that is NOT the "normal" meaning. It is a possible meaning of the word, but I have never heard or read it used in general usage nor in medical or biological. In fact in scripture it is not the normal usage either.
Nope, those who see it as a future generation do NOT see it as referring to the lifetime of a person.
They are also wrong to think about it as they do even when they may use it in its more normal way.

Suit yourself.

[ForHisglory]

That is an incredibly naïve statement! If you're talking about the difference between a father and a son, then this position agrees with me that it has to do with the lifetime of a person, and not some ambiguous meaning like "race" or "kind of people." The difference between a father and a son is the difference between the lifetime of the father and the lifetime of the son. I don't think anybody would disagree with me if I said that after my two sons are born and get into middle age, which they are, that there aren't still people alive in *my generation!* This has become a foolish discussion. It is standard to understand the distinction between seeing Jesus discuss "this generation" as either his own or a future generation.

What is naive about stating what IS the common usage?
It is a simple FACT.
You are extrapolating from the standard meaning to then expand onto another usage. This means you are deviating from the COMMON usage to a less common one.
The difference is not between the lifetime of a Father and a Son, but the age the Father was when the Son was born.
So you clearly aren't working from the common meaning.

The usage as of race is from the Greek and is not a common meaning either.

As to your two sons, they will NEVER be of your generation even though they are alive at the same time as you, which shows it is NOT NORMALLY about who is alive at the time. Jesus' generation then is different to that of children and young men alive at that time.
So with Jesus being born (as you say around 4 BC) then his lifetime would be over by 67 AD - the 70 years of Psalm 90.

Jesus didn't say "that generation" or "the younger generation". IF He wanted to note a DIFFERENT generation then He could have said so, but didn't.
Going by YOUR usage and YOUR explanation, we find that 70 AD is TOO late for "this generation".

Yes, conversations are not designed to address your idiosyncratic hypothetical problems with how Jesus meant to convey these things. The Discourse simply spells out the major issue in the Discourse, which is the 70 AD destruction of the temple, and then expects you, the reader, to understand what fits where.

The "qualifier," therefore, is assumed by the established theme of the Discourse. Bringing up a distant event like the 2nd Coming does not remove the initial focus upon "this generation" and the 70 AD destruction of the temple. Bringing up the stars falling from the sky, and the 2nd Coming, in no way is included in this initial focus upon the destruction of the temple in "this generation." So yes, we have a qualifier, in the sense that Jesus was answering questions primarily about *when* the 70 AD destruction would take place. The answer was, it will take place in "this generation," which we clearly see was fulfilled in 70 AD. And Luke's version in ch. 21 makes this abundantly clear.

So you ADMIT you have ZERO qualifier, and then you claim the whole context is the qualifier, by claiming that Jesus didn't know how language worked or what would be understood by saying "Al..." without giving a specific qualifier.
Wow, you are digging a deeper and deeper hole and you are clueless as to why it is called nonsense.

Suit yourself.

It isn't about suiting me. It is simply noting what IS.

[randyk]

What is naive about stating what IS the common usage?
It is a simple FACT.
You are extrapolating from the standard meaning to then expand onto another usage. This means you are deviating from the COMMON usage to a less common one.
The difference is not between the lifetime of a Father and a Son, but the age the Father was when the Son was born.
So you clearly aren't working from the common meaning.

The usage as of race is from the Greek and is not a common meaning either.

As to your two sons, they will NEVER be of your generation even though they are alive at the same time as you, which shows it is NOT NORMALLY about who is alive at the time. Jesus' generation then is different to that of children and young men alive at that time.
So with Jesus being born (as you say around 4 BC) then his lifetime would be over by 67 AD - the 70 years of Psalm 90.

Jesus didn't say "that generation" or "the younger generation". IF He wanted to note a DIFFERENT generation then He could have said so, but didn't.
Going by YOUR usage and YOUR explanation, we find that 70 AD is TOO late for "this generation".


So you ADMIT you have ZERO qualifier, and then you claim the whole context is the qualifier, by claiming that Jesus didn't know how language worked or what would be understood by saying "Al..." without giving a specific qualifier.
Wow, you are digging a deeper and deeper hole and you are clueless as to why it is called nonsense.



It isn't about suiting me. It is simply noting what IS.

For me this argument about what "generation" means has gotten unnecessarily confusing, and obscures the issue. But to correct the false impression you give of my definition, let me just say this.

Yes, my generation is different from my sons' generation. But my sons' generation also live in *my generation,* and are part of *my generation.* This is because their own generation extends beyond the lifetime of *my generation.* They are born later than me, and thus have a lifetime that extends beyond my own.

You can call my view any name you want. Most people understand that Jesus meant, or could have meant, that something would happen in the life-time of his peers. Period.

[ForHisglory]

For me this argument about what "generation" means has gotten unnecessarily confusing, and obscures the issue. But to correct the false impression you give of my definition, let me just say this.

Yes, my generation is different from my sons' generation. But my sons' generation also live in *my generation,* and are part of *my generation.* This is because their own generation extends beyond the lifetime of *my generation.* They are born later than me, and thus have a lifetime that extends beyond my own.

You can call my view any name you want. Most people understand that Jesus meant, or could have meant, that something would happen in the life-time of his peers. Period.

Your sons may live while you live, but they are NOT ever part of your generation - except when we change the meaning to be how I use it, to speak of a child being generated by his parents.
Their generation is NOT your generation. Never is.
Therefore when Jesus says "this generation" which generation is He speaking about?
His own, those who come after or actually those who are in charge, which condemn Him to die.
Those who are children are definitely NOT in view, and the closest would seem to be those who fit the criteria of leading. IOW the generation of those older than Jesus.

Most people might think those born when Jesus was, if they don't bother to think.
Those who bother to think would consider those who are in charge, which is the generation before Jesus.
However almost no one would think it included the children or a generation after Jesus, and definitely wouldn't use you definition of a lifetime.

Yet on reflection we can actually find a meaning which fits with the word "all".

[randyk]

Your sons may live while you live, but they are NOT ever part of your generation - except when we change the meaning to be how I use it, to speak of a child being generated by his parents.
Their generation is NOT your generation. Never is.
Therefore when Jesus says "this generation" which generation is He speaking about?
His own, those who come after or actually those who are in charge, which condemn Him to die.
Those who are children are definitely NOT in view, and the closest would seem to be those who fit the criteria of leading. IOW the generation of those older than Jesus.

Most people might think those born when Jesus was, if they don't bother to think.
Those who bother to think would consider those who are in charge, which is the generation before Jesus.
However almost no one would think it included the children or a generation after Jesus, and definitely wouldn't use you definition of a lifetime.

Yet on reflection we can actually find a meaning which fits with the word "all".

You are having semantics issues. I understand what you're saying, but you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that I have my own generation, along with my peers, and my sons have their own generation, along with their peers. Yes, these are 2 distinct generations. But I'm saying they overlap. Their generation overlaps and is part of my generation, because they are *in my generation,* in the sense that their generation is coincidental with mine!

When Jesus spoke of "this generation" he was not just speaking of his own generation, but of the generations of those he was talking to. This could've had quite some range, including perhaps 10 different generations, depending on when each of his disciples were born! But Jesus was speaking of *all* those generations whose generation was coincidental with his own generation, and could certainly have included the parents and children whose generations coincided with his own. And this was because he was addressing the wickedness of all those who lived in his own time, not just those who sent him to the Cross, but even their children who continued to reject Christianity. "This generation" meant the generation of Jesus, along with the generations of all those he was speaking to, and perhaps many others, whose generation was coincidental with the generation of Jesus.

The question is moot, regardless. The fall of Jerusalem took place about 40 years after Jesus said this. It was clearly within his own generation, and within the lifetime of those he had spoken to. For example, the Apostle John was still alive in 70 AD.

[ForHisglory]

You are having semantics issues.

Semantics is about understanding what words mean.
Semantics therefore IS important.
I am not the one who has issues with them though but you.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that I have my own generation, along with my peers, and my sons have their own generation, along with their peers. Yes, these are 2 distinct generations. But I'm saying they overlap. Their generation overlaps and is part of my generation, because they are *in my generation,* in the sense that their generation is coincidental with mine!

No one disagrees that there can be more than one generation alive at the same time.
However when Jesus says "this..." then the question is WHICH generation is He meaning.
This generation IF used about a SPECIFIC generation, as you do, means ONLY one of the generations that are alive.

When Jesus spoke of "this generation" he was not just speaking of his own generation, but of the generations of those he was talking to. This could've had quite some range, including perhaps 10 different generations, depending on when each of his disciples were born! But Jesus was speaking of *all* those generations whose generation was coincidental with his own generation, and could certainly have included the parents and children whose generations coincided with his own. And this was because he was addressing the wickedness of all those who lived in his own time, not just those who sent him to the Cross, but even their children who continued to reject Christianity. "This generation" meant the generation of Jesus, along with the generations of all those he was speaking to, and perhaps many others, whose generation was coincidental with the generation of Jesus.

Sorry, but you really need to learn what words mean. This does NOT mean EVERY. There is NO range in THIS, but it is SPECIFIC.
If I say I would like this glass please, then I do NOT mean a whole range of glasses. I mean the SPECIFIC one.
Jesus did NOT say ALL - which for you doesn't mean "all" anyway as you have it mean some.

The question is moot, regardless. The fall of Jerusalem took place about 40 years after Jesus said this. It was clearly within his own generation, and within the lifetime of those he had spoken to. For example, the Apostle John was still alive in 70 AD.

It is important for YOUR view.
You claim it is happening with "this generation" and I am highlighting that "this generation" were dead in 70 AD by the usage you are now claiming of generation.
His generation would scripturally be dead.
The generation He has addressed IN the temple were dead even earlier.