An Atheist's Misinterpretation

[chair]

Ha! I knew it, you also think the Scripture is nonsense because you have your own beloved paradigm outside of the Scripture to cherish...

That is what you are doing. Twisting verses to mean what you want them to mean, by use of what you call "typology".

 

[csuguy]

You left out an important part of the verse.
It says, in your version, "as a testimony to all nations".

KJV says; "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Acts 2 shows us this came to pass well before Jerusalem was destroyed. God deposited the gospel as a "testimony" (witness) throughout the entire inhabited world through His "chosen people" no less.

Verse 5 - "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
Verse 11 - "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Verse 37 - "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Please read the entire section - very interesting. Apparently they were at Jerusalem as delegates for their synagogues for the Pentecost celebrations. But they got more than they bargained for. They became God's first missionaries to the whole world.

God ensured, prior to the days of great tribulation (AD 70) that the gospel was deposited, as a witness, in "every nation under heaven" in "devout men" who undoubtedly took this good news with them when they returned to their own country.

The KJV is nothing special such that we should be using it as THE translation. And, at any rate, the two different translations are equivalent in meaning. And we know that the gospel hadn't reached the entire world by that point as a simple historical fact. They didn't even know about, let alone travel to, the Americas for instance (unless Mormonism is to be believed). Though it may be fair to say that they had spread throughout the world as they knew it at the time.

Even if we accept this as a fulfillment of going to all nations (which they didn't literally do here) there is still the elephant in the room: Christ didn't return within a generations time of 70 AD, and he still hasn't. As such 70 AD absolutely does not meet the criteria put forth in Matthew 24.

Further, if we go to the next point in Matthew 24 we can again note that 70 AD does not fit the bill:

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. Matthew 24:15-22​

While the events of 70 AD were no pick-nick for the Jewish people, it can hardly be said to be the "great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equaled again." Rather, if I had to pick a historical event that matches this description - it would have to be the holocaust. Of course, the holocaust didn't occur in Judea. Which means that the coming distress will be greater than the holocaust - a scary thought.

 

[RevTestament]

Too right I don't. It is pure gibberish. And disgraceful.

Just for the benefit of the reader to get a feel for what I am talking about:

The Semitic Style of the New Testament
From http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

by Michael D. Marlowe

Although the language of the New Testament is fundamentally the koine or “common” Greek of the period in which it was written, the New Testament authors wrote in a Hebraic or Semitic style which is not entirely idiomatic Greek. This stylistic character may be seen in several areas, including the grammar, syntax, semantics, and rhetorical features of the text. Particular examples of this style are called linguistic Hebraisms, or, more broadly, Semitisms (a term which covers Aramaic influences as well as Hebrew).

A Semitism is defined as a linguistic usage, expression or construction typical of a Semitic language appearing in another language. It is not necessary for an expression to be ungrammatical or otherwise completely outlandish in the usage of the second language in order for it to be considered a Semitism. Although some Semitisms are of this stark and absolute nature, others are what we may call relative Semitisms, when there is an unusual strain against ordinary usage probably due to Semitic influence. So there is a gray area, in which there is some room for disagreement in marginal cases. One scholar may consider an expression to be a Semitism while another doubts whether it is right to classify it as such. Nevertheless, all scholars agree that various Semitisms are abundantly present in the New Testament.

There is also some disagreement as to why they are there. Some scholars are inclined to think that much of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the Semitisms of the Greek text are a consequence of the translation of these original sources, in which Hebrew or Aramaic idioms were reproduced literally. Thus, the Semitisms of the New Testament are explained in the same way as we explain the Semitisms of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which often literally reproduces the Hebraisms of its Hebrew source. Other scholars prefer to explain the Semitisms of the New Testament as a consequence of peculiarities in the Greek commonly spoken by bilingual Jews in the first century. 1 Other scholars believe that the Semitic style of the New Testament is best explained as a kind of “Biblical” style which Jewish authors or preachers of the era would have used, not so much in their ordinary speech, but in their writing and in preaching, after the model of the Septuagint.

Probably there is some truth in all of these explanations. It can hardly be doubted that at least some of the material included in the Gospels (especially the sayings of Jesus) was originally recorded or perhaps orally transmitted in Aramaic, and that at some point this Aramaic was translated into the Greek which we have in our New Testament. But this would account for only a small portion of the Semitisms in the New Testament. We can also easily imagine that Greek-speaking Jews in the first century used some Semitic idioms, comparable in some degree to the Jewish-German dialect known as Yiddish. It would be surprising if such a self-conscious and tight-knit ethnic group as the Jews would not have had some distinctive expressions. The idea that the Septuagint especially influenced the style of Jewish authors is inherently plausible when we consider how familiar devout Jews (and Gentiles also in the early Church) must have been with the Septuagint. It is practically certain that the language of the Greek Old Testament exercised an influence on the religious discourse of Greek-speaking Jews, including the Jewish apostles and their fellow-workers. As Joseph Thayer puts it, “beyond all question the idioms of this Greek reproduction of the earlier Scriptures, made familiar as they were by the religious use of the version for generations among the Jews of the Dispersion, must have had a great influence in forming the type of Greek current among people of Jewish stock ... notwithstanding all uncertianties and abatements, the general influence of the Septuagint upon New Testament Greek was indubitably great.” 2 This last explanation seems to have the most favor among scholars in the past century, but it remains an open question to what extent the Septuagint influenced not only the written Greek but also the commonly spoken Greek of Jews in the first century.

What is the importance of this subject for our understanding of the New Testament? Chiefly, it means that translators and expositors must take into account not only the common usages of Koine Greek, but also the peculiarities of what we may call “Biblical” or Jewish Greek. When we have good reason to suppose that an expression in the New Testament reflects a Hebrew idiom, then it should be interpreted as if it were “Hebrew in disguise.” In this manner we correctly apprehend the meaning of many words and expressions in the New Testament.

The following paragraphs, taken from David Alan Black’s article “New Testament Semitisms” (The Bible Translator 39/2 [April 1988], pp. 215-223), will give some brief observations on the most common Semitisms in the New Testament.


The Most Common Semitisms

Order of words. In all Semitic languages the verb tends to come first in its sentence or clause. This tendency is sometimes found in New Testament Greek. Examples include the second half of the Magnificat (Luke 1:51-55), the position of the imperatives in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), and the initial place of the verb in the series of clauses in the creedal hymn of 1 Timothy 3:16. No native Greek, uninfluenced by Semitic sources or a Semitic language, would have followed this pattern. It is possible that a large number of the instances of the verb in the initial place come from translation Greek sources.

Casus pendens. Although casus pendens (a common technical term in grammar taken from the Latin for “a hanging case”) is used with effect in classical Greek, the construction is much more frequent in Hebrew and Aramaic than in the koine. A typical example is Matthew 6:4, kai ho pater sou ho blepon en to krypto autos adoposei soi. This would be expressed idiomatically in Hebrew as “And your Father who sees in secret, he will repay you.” This is an unusually complicated way of saying “And your Father who sees in secret will repay you” (see GNB, NIV, NEB). While such constructions cannot be described as uniquely Semitic, their preponderance in the sayings of Jesus supports the view that a translation Greek tradition is to be found there.

Missing conjunctions. The absence of a conjunction where one might be expected is known in technical jargon as asyndeton (Greek for “unconnected, loose”). Most scholars agree that this feature is contrary to the spirit of the Greek language. Most Greek sentences are linked by a connecting particle, and, where asyndeton is found, it is generally used with rhetorical effect (for a notable example, see Acts 20:17-35). But when all allowances have been made for Greek uses of the construction, there remains a high number of non-Greek uses, especially in the Gospels and Acts. The frequent use of asyndeton in the fourth Gospel (see, for instance, John 5:3) is best explained as the result of Semitic influence. Asyndeton in the synoptic Gospels occurs almost exclusively in the sayings and parables of Jesus, suggesting the existence of a sayings-tradition cast in translation Greek (see, for instance, Matthew 15:19).

Coordination of clauses. In classical Greek, sentences usually contained one main verb, and all other verbs were subordinated in adverbial clauses of one kind or another. Hebrew, on the other hand, tended to place main verbs side by side, joining them together with a simple conjunction (the Hebrew waw “and”). This is known as parataxis, from the Greek verb paratasso “I set side by side.” In koine Greek the construction is not uncommon, and this alone has been though to explain its frequency in the New Testament. But the constantly recurring “and” (Greek kai) of the Gospels is certainly an overstraining of Greek literary usage. In the Gospels this type of construction is most characteristic of Mark, who has only a single instance of a longer Greek sentence with subordinating participles (see 5:25-27). A typical example of Mark’s style is found in 10:33-34, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and (kai) the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and (kai) they will condemn him to death, and (kai) they will deliver him up to the Gentiles. And (kai) they will mock him and (kai) spit upon him and (kai) scourge him and (kai) kill him, and (kai) three days later he will rise again.” Here a more typical Greek style would, perhaps, have subordinated one or more of these clauses by means of participles or relative clauses. Translations such as the KJV and RSV reflect the Semitic style and are stylistically awkward in English; but other English translations, recognizing the Semitic idiom involved, restructure the grammar slaightly to produce more acceptable English (see GNB, NIV, JB, NEB). [Note: The subject of parataxis as an indication of Semitic background is treated more fully in the article J.B. Lightfoot on the Style of John’s Gospel on this site. —M.D.M]

Redundant pronouns. The Hebrew relative pronoun is indeclinable and genderless, and therefore requires a personal pronoun in the clause which follows. This has influenced a few New Testament passages in which an unnecessary pronoun appears after a relative, as in Mark 7:25, which literally reads, “A woman whose little daughter of her had an unclean spirit.” This construction may be possible in Greek, but it is not native to it, as it is in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Substitutes for the indefinite pronoun. The use of heis “one” and anthropos “a man, a person” as substitutes for the indefinite pronoun tis “a certain person, someone, a” is paralleled in the koine, but its source in the New Testament is almost certainly Semitic. Instances of heis as an indefinite pronoun fall into two classes: (1) where heis is an adjective, as in Mattew 8:19, “a scribe,” and (2) where it is a full pronoun, generally followed by the genitive construction or partitive ek, as in Mark 5:22, “a ruler of the synagogue.” The use of anthropos “man,” in this way (like Hebrew ish and Aramaic barnash) is found most frequently in the sayings of Jesus, and most examples come from Mark’s Gospel (see, for instance, 1:23, 3:1, 4:26, 5:2, 10:7, 10:9, 12:1).

Redundant use of the preposition. A characteristic feature of Semitic usage is the repetition of a preposition before every noun of a series which it governs. Such a construction is intolerable in literary Greek. Semitic repetition occurs no less than eleven times in Mark alone (see, for example, 3:7-8, 6:56, 11:1). It is interesting to see the way in which different English translations treat redundant prepositions. Some repeat the preposition each time it occurs in a series, as in Mark 3:7-8 (see KJV, RSV); others translate only the initial preposition, a practice which is more in keeping with the English idiom (see NIV, JB, NEB).

The use of the positive adjective for the comparative or superlative. The Semitic languages, with the exception of Arabic, have no special forms for the comparative and superlative adjectives (such as “bigger,” “biggest”). Instead, the positive adjective is used, “big.” Although the comparative is often used for the superlative in the koine, there does not appear to be any parallel in Greek to the Semitic use of the positive for the comparative or superlative. A good example of the idiom occurs in Mark 9:43: “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better (Greek kalon, literally “good”) for you to enter life crippled than having your two hands to go to hell.” Note also the following examples: Mark 12:28, “the most important” (literally, “the first”); Luke 5:39, “better” (literally, “good”); and John 2:10, “You have kept the best (literally ‘good’) wine until now.”

Redundant use of “saying.” Indirect speech is unknown in biblical Hebrew; all speech is recorded directly, whether the words recorded were the actual words spoken or represented the general meaning of what was said. The Hebrew word most closely corresponding to the Greek participle legon “saying” is used to introduce the quotation. This idiom is well illustrated in Mark 8:28, “And they said to him, saying (legontes), ‘John the Baptist’.” For other examples of this idiom, see Matthew 23:1-2, 28:18, Luke 14:3, 24:6-7.

Contrast in extreme terms. Contrast in Hebrew is often stated in extreme terms for the sake of emphasis. The words of Malachi 1:2-3, “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated,” illustrate this feature of Hebrew speech. A New Testament example is the Lord’s solemn affirmation, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26). What Jesus means of course, is that his disciples must give all other objects of love second place in relation to him—a meaning brought out in the parallel passage in Matthew 10:37, “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Luke’s version preserves the Hebraic style, Matthew’s the Greek.

Introductory “It came to pass.” The peculiar use of the Greek verb egeneto with another verb often reproduces a closely corresponding Semitic idiom meaning “it was so” or “it came to pass.” This Semitism appears far more frequently in Luke’s writings than elsewhere (Mark has only four examples of it). An example is Luke 2:6, “And it came to pass (egeneto de) that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.” Recognizing the unnaturalness of the expression, most modern translations begin simply, “While they were there” (see GNB, NIV, JB, NEB, RSV). For other examples of this idiom, see Luke 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, 3:21, 5:1, 5:12, 5:17, 6:1, 6:6, 6:12, 7:11, 8:1, 8:22, 9:18, 9:28,9:37, 9:51, 11:1, 11:27, 14:1, 17:11, 18:35, 20:1, 22:24, 24:4.

Adjectival substitutes. In Hebrew the so-called construct state largely took the place of the adjective. In this construction two nouns stand together, and the second noun (as genitive) limits or qualifies the first one. Greek has a corresponding use of the genitive case of a noun in an adjectival sense. The two most characteristically Semitic idioms are (1) the genitive of an abstract noun in place of an adjective of quality, and (2) the use of “son” (huios) with a following genitive of origin or definition. The former idiom, sometimes called the “Hebrew genitive,” is found for example in Philippians 3:21, where Paul describes “our lowly body” (literally “the body of our lowliness”), and “his glorious body” (literally “the body of his glory”). New Testament instances of huios and the genitive include Luke 10:6 “a peace-loving man” (literally “a son of peace”), 1 Thessalonians 5:5 “people who belong to the light” (literally “sons of light”), and Colossians 1:13 “his dear son” (literally “the son of his love”).

Future indicative used as an imperative. The Hebrew verb form most closely corresponding to the Greek future indicative is often used to express commands. This construction has probably influenced a passage like Mark 9:35, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all.” In this passage greater emphasis is given by taking the future he shall be as an imperative, as in NIV, “Whoever wants to be first, he must be the very last,” (see also GNB, JB, NEB, RSV). The same can be said for the use of the future indicative in Luke 1:13, “And you shall call his name John,” which GNB renders, “You are to name him John,” Compare also Matthew 19:18-19 in the various translations.

The particle ei expressing emphatic negation. The Hebrew word which corresponds to the Greek particle ei (normally translated “if”) can introduce a clause expressing emphatic negation. This idiom appears to have influenced such passages as Hebrews 4:3, “By no means (ei) shall they enter into my rest,” and Mark 8:12, “By no means (ei) shall a sign be given to this generation.”

Verb and cognate noun expressing emphasis. The Hebrew verb form known as the infinitive absolute is sometimes closely associated with another form of the same verb to express emphasis. And Old Testament example is Genesis 2:17, “you will surely die” (literally “dying you will die”). A good New Testament example of this idiom is found in Luke 22:15, where the expression epithymia epethymesa (literally “with desire I have desired”) means “I have earnestly desired.” Mark 4:41 is a similar example: ephobethesan phobon megan “they feared greatly” (literally “they feared a great fear”). Though this idiom is paralleled in classical Greek, in the New Testament it seems to be derived from the Septuagint, especially in Luke and Acts.

Parallelism. Parallelism of lines and clauses is a characteristic of Semitic poetry and can be easily detected in the New Testament even in translation. That the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11) were originally cast in poetic form, whether in Hebrew or Aramaic, is obvious from the parallelism we can still see in English. Further traces of parallelism are discoverable in the Lucan hymns (Luke 1-2) and the prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:34-35). Most other New Testament parallelisms are found in dialogue, as in Mark 11:9-10, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David!” The presence of such parallelism may be helpful in determining whether portions of a text should be printed in poetic format rather than in prose style.

Redundant use of the verb apokrinomai. The expression “he answered and said” (apokritheis eipen) closely resembles a common Hebrew idiom. The use of the verb apokrinomai “I answer” in this sense is often purely redundant (see Matthew 11:25, 12:38, 17:4, 28:5, Mark 9:5, 11:14, 12:35). In cases in which no question has been asked, it may be misleading to translate the expression “he answered” (Compare Matthew 11:25 in KJV “Jesus answered and said” with NIV “Jesus said”). This idiom is extremely common in the synoptic Gospels, where the writers appear to have modelled themselves after the familiar language of the Septuagint.

The use of idou. The particle idou “behold,” found in the New Testament especially in Matthew and Luke, is often used in imitation of the corresponding Hebrew expression (hinne). It is quite genuine Greek (compare English “look here!”), 3 but used frequently it is a natural product of Semitic speech. New Testament examples include Matthew 1:20, 2:9, 3:16, Luke 1:20, 1:31, 1:36, 2:25, Acts 12:7, James 5:9. In GNB, NIV, and NEB the term is usually left untranslated.

Various pleonasms, or “fillers.” Hebrew often describes activity with a wealth of detail which the Greeks would find unnecessary, though perhaps colorful, as for example, “he arose and went,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” “he took and planted.” New Testament examples include Matthew 13:33, 13:46, 25:16, Luke 15:18, Acts 5:17. Frequently the verb archomai “I begin” is used pleonastically (see Mark 1:45, 5:17, 6:7), but it is not redundant in a passage like Acts 1:1 (Acts continues what Jesus literally began to do and teach.

Transliterations. The most obvious influence of the Semitic languages on the New Testament must also be mentioned: Hebrew and Aramaic words which are simply transliterated into Greek. From Hebrew we have allelouia, amen, geenna, korban, manna, pascha, sabaoth, sabbaton, and Satanas. From Aramaic we find abba, ephphatha, korbanas, mammonas, maranatha, rabbi, raka, talitha koumi, and eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani.

The meaning of certain words. Probably the most important kind of influence exerted by the Semitic languages on New Testament Greek is in the meaning of certain theological and ethical terms. The Greek outlook on religion and morals differed greatly from that of the Jews, and Greek terms were of course used to reflect the Greek outlook. But the Septuagint translators used these terms to represent Hebrew words which reflected Jewish meanings, and thus gave these Greek terms a new meaning. It is often this new meaning which attaches to these words when they are used in the New Testament.

There are also issues of Hebrew style which is what I am really talking about in this instance. To impose a Greek[and English] linear understanding of "this generation" on the clear Hebrew allegorical style being used by Jesus is a big cause for misunderstanding this verse.

 

[Desert Reign]

Dear desert reign,

P.S. I ignored your grievous words towards me. That is how I am. Love also your 'enemies.'

My words to you weren't intended in any way to cause you grief. I don't see how they could be interpreted that way. All I said was that your position was illogical. Perhaps you are mixing up the comments I made with regards to DAQQ?

The verse in question appears within the context of the parable of the fig and is further qualified by him going onto say that he has no idea of when these things will occur - but that they will occur at a time we do not expect. You must not only look at the general theme of the chapter but at the immediate context in which a verse is stated.

You want to point to 70 AD, but it is clear that this is an unfit match for everything written both in the chapter and in Daniel's 70 weeks. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Jesus didn't come back at that time. And that isn't the only short coming. Example:

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:9-14
​

We know the gospel wasn't preached throughout the whole world by 70 AD.

I am not sure that Daniel's 70 weeks has too much to do with it apart from Jesus refers to the abomination of desolation. But Jesus' reference doesn't have to imply the entire passage from Daniel. All he is saying is that there is a precedent for what he himself is describing, namely that the temple would be desecrated. It was desecrated before under Antiochus IV so the 70 ad event doesn't have to be unique.

Furthermore, it is expressly stated in Colossians 1:6 and Colossians 1:23 that the Gospel had been already preached in all the world. I am sure that many would disagree with this but the evidence is not with them: most of the uses of the words oikoumene and kosmos in the New Testament refer to limited spheres of influence. Paul and the other apostles and missionaries considered that Christ's commission had been fulfilled.

If context is your thing, then consider that the word Matthew uses for 'world' here is 'oikoumene' and it is the only time he uses it. All other occasions he uses the word 'kosmos'. Clearly he means something different. He means the whole of the inhabited world known to them, i.e. the Greek and Roman worlds, just as pretty much all people in the Greek and Roman worlds also meant by that word.

Then, your citing of the fig tree is surely just question begging. The discourse is clearly bounded by verses 1 to 3 at the beginning and initially completing in verse 14. The rest of the chapter is expansion of this core text and chapter 25 is further expansion and moving on to more general issues. So the context is clearly established as the fall of Jerusalem (or the temple).

Just for the benefit of the reader to get a feel for what I am talking about:

There are also issues of Hebrew style which is what I am really talking about in this instance. To impose a Greek[and English] linear understanding of "this generation" on the clear Hebrew allegorical style being used by Jesus is a big cause for misunderstanding this verse.

What your lengthy passage states is nothing new at all. We all learn about the gallicisms in English and the anglicismes in French. Your lengthy quote merely confuses and diverts from the fact that you made a totally vague and unfounded statement. Compounded by your words which I have highlighted above. Despite all the technical sounding details, what you go on to say has nothing to do with your citation. Your argument amounts to 'I am right because I read an article. The article I read has nothing to do with the issue but I read it and therefore I must be a great and authoritative person.' If you think you are so technically minded then why haven't you offered an exact argument as to why the passage means what you think it does when considering the supposed technical principles you cite? (You can consider that a rhetorical question if you want - the answer is obvious: you are just guessing and showing bravado.) There is nothing particularly linear about the Greek or English languages or allegorical about the Hebrew language. These are such gross over-generalisations as to actually be quite false. I would bet that you don't even know what you mean by these terms. And of course none of this in any way supports an argument that the people Jesus was addressing were people in all ages.

And why have you not also offered a discourse analysis of the passage in question, which, if you were so technically minded as you want to make out, you would have known was surely a much more basic and rewarding exercise in terms of interpretation?

"People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do."

 

[George Affleck]

The KJV is nothing special such that we should be using it as THE translation. And, at any rate, the two different translations are equivalent in meaning.

I did not suggest that the KJV was special but simply said I prefer it and added it to enforce yours. In addition I cited the word "testimony" from your translation as the primary focus. Your comment is inappropriate for this discussion and I suggest you are simply trying to impress yourself with irrelevant argumentation.

And we know that the gospel hadn't reached the entire world by that point as a simple historical fact. They didn't even know about, let alone travel to, the Americas for instance (unless Mormonism is to be believed). Though it may be fair to say that they had spread throughout the world as they knew it at the time.

Even if we accept this as a fulfillment of going to all nations (which they didn't literally do here)...

I have have had similar discussions with you, in the past, where you demonstrate a singular penchant for inaccuracy and for revising what God says to what you think He meant to say. You just continue to return to your own opinions instead of respecting God's inerrant record.

Inaccuracy: "...a fulfillment of going to all nations..."
God's words: "...as a testimony to all nations..."

God's word says there were devout men present out of "every nation under heaven". I believe Him - you do not. Your arguement is not with me it is with God.

Further discussion regarding Matthew 24 would be completely unfruitful until you are willing to take God at His word.

 

[csuguy]

I did not suggest that the KJV was special but simply said I prefer it and added it to enforce yours. In addition I cited the word "testimony" from your translation as the primary focus. Your comment is inappropriate for this discussion and I suggest you are simply trying to impress yourself with irrelevant argumentation.

You said I left something out and then quote the KJV while underlying "witness" as opposed to "testimony." My comment was appropriate given this - so consider your presentation. But I'm glad your not a KJV-onlyist.

I have have had similar discussions with you, in the past, where you demonstrate a singular penchant for inaccuracy and for revising what God says to what you think He meant to say. You just continue to return to your own opinions instead of respecting God's inerrant record.

Inaccuracy: "...a fulfillment of going to all nations..."
God's words: "...as a testimony to all nations..."

God's word says there were devout men present out of "every nation under heaven". I believe Him - you do not. Your arguement is not with me it is with God.

Further discussion regarding Matthew 24 would be completely unfruitful until you are willing to take God at His word.

You are being silly here. Scripture often speaks in generalities for which there are exceptions. It says that all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). By your logic we must accept this at face value without any analysis. By your logic Jesus, the man, must have also been a sinner. Furthermore, we may find minor inconsistencies between the Gospels and such which reflect a degree of human error. We can compare manuscripts of the scriptures overtime and find minor modifications and insertions. I trust the scriptures - but it is silly to think that they are absolutely perfect and free from any and all human error. Just look at the many different translations out there.

 

[George Affleck]

Dear George Affleck,

Hi!! It's been a bit. Hope you're doing well!! I must tell you, from what I KNOW, Jesus said this because He meant this generation of Adam and Eve. From Adam & Eve until Jesus' Second Coming is One Generation {See Rev. 20:4,5,6KJV} "But the rest of the dead did not live AGAIN until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." The next generation will be prior to the Second Death. There will be no other generations on Earth after that. The Earth will see a Second Death, not a Third. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough here. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, let me know in a PM. George, I'm not talking about or allotting for 2nd, 3rd generations of men, because they are minor, compared to the major Generation. Tell you're friends about all of this. There is your answer right there. If you need anything else, let me know.

May God Always Bless The Fruit You Bring Forth To Him!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :thumb:

Hey Michael!

The reason I have difficulties with the children of Adam and Eve being thought of as a complete generation is because of the use of the word generally in the Bible. If we don't take the meaning of a word from the way God uses it, are we not reading into it something that is not there?

In fact, in Matt 24:34KJV, it is actually stated that that generation would, in fact, pass away when a condition was fulfilled. It would seem that the word genea generally denotes a parent-child time duration.

A couple of examples are:

Luke 1:50KJV, Joel 1:3KJV, Lam 5:19KJV, Luke 17:25KJV

The only time, as far as I can see, when "generation" is used to denote a "people" is in reference to those who are the Lord's as in 1 Pet 2:9KJV. This would make sense in that the kingdom of God is not subject to time and it is still, in essence, one generation - we are all brothers and sisters with one Father.

Great to see you posting - God bless your heart and enthusiasm.

 

[George Affleck]

You said I left something out and then quote the KJV while underlying "witness" as opposed to "testimony." My comment was appropriate given this - so consider your presentation.

Wrong - I underlined both - "given this" your comment is not at all appropriate.

But I'm glad your not a KJV-onlyist.

I did not say one way or the other. You are assuming again and trying to cloud the issue at hand with irrelevancies.

You are being silly here. Scripture often speaks in generalities for which there are exceptions. It says that all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).By your logic we must accept this at face value without any analysis. By your logic Jesus, the man, must have also been a sinner.

This verse in Romans does not use the word "men" it talks about "all". You confuse yourself when you are inaccurate.
The verse also explains within itself that God (Jesus) is in a different category and is, in fact, the yardstick by which "all" are to be judged.

Taking the verse at "face value" teaches us - apart from God, all have sinned.

Furthermore, we may find minor inconsistencies between the Gospels and such which reflect a degree of human error. We can compare manuscripts of the scriptures overtime and find minor modifications and insertions. I trust the scriptures - but it is silly to think that they are absolutely perfect and free from any and all human error. Just look at the many different translations out there.

Again, please take this up with God and not me. Here is what He has to say on inerrancy and preservation:

Ps 12:6KJV, Ps 12:7KJV, Is 59:21KJV, Ps 100:5KJV, Is 40:8KJV, Luke 21:33KJV, 1 Pet 1:25KJV

There is no sense for you to have an opinion on Matthew 24, a very difficult chapter, until you learn the basics; God has preserved His Word without error.

 

[RevTestament]

"People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do."

I must say I am actually dismayed that I keep responding to you.
I have never been rude nor crude to you. I simply challenged your interpretation, but your prior 2 responses to me thus far have been in part in this same haughty vein:
1. "So give me a good reason why I need to treat the rest of your post as if it wasn't methane from the same source. I don't mind if people who know what they are talking about criticise my arguments and CSUGuy happens to be such a person, is respected by me, and I am sure he will respond with a knowledgeable answer. You however apparently don't come into that category."
[and why is that? because I am LDS?]
2. "...It is pure gibberish. And disgraceful."
[In other words how dare I challenge the mighty DesertReign]
There is nothing disgraceful about trying to interpret Jesus from a Hebraic viewpoint. The disgraceful thing IMHO is doing what you are doing, by rudely dismissing my viewpoint without any attempt to address it or justify yourself.

If you think you are so technically minded then why haven't you offered an exact argument as to why the passage means what you think it does when considering the supposed technical principles you cite? (You can consider that a rhetorical question if you want - the answer is obvious: you are just guessing and shwing bravado.) There is nothing particularly linear about the Greek or English languages or allegorical about the Hebrew language. These are such gross over-generalisations as to actually be quite false. I would bet that you don't even know what you mean by these terms. And of ocurse none of this in any way supports an argument that the people Jesus was addressing were people in all ages.

And why have you not also offered a discourse analysis of the passage in question, which, if you were so technically minded as you want to make out, you would have known was surely a much more basic and rewarding exercise in terms of interpretation?

You continue to show a complete disregard for what I am trying to say, and frankly ignorance of fairly common concepts/verbage used in Hebrew scholarship.
You continue to show a linear approach to analyzing these passages, and continue to allude to your superior intellect, so I am no longer posting for your benefit, but for the benefit of the truly open learners whom you claim to be one of here:

I wouldn't have bothered to ask. The mere fact that he said it shows that he delights in attention-seeking and I try not to oblige. I am not interested in mysteries but in openness.

A CIRCULAR VERSUS A LINEAR VIEW OF GOD
from http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf
“The Hebrew mind viewed God quite differently from the systematic theological thinking of the West,
which defines God and his work with creation in linear manner. The Western-style treatment of the divine charac-
ter attempts to explain inconsistencies and harmonize contradictions systematically. The Hebrew mind was filled
with wonder at the mystery of God. The vastness of God and his inscrutable [uninvestigatible] ways left them
awestruck. Inconsistencies and contradictions are intimately related to human, finite understanding of the infinite
God."

The Hebrew language is one of action and is constantly describing things in action as opposed to a "linear understanding." This is quite important to understanding Jesus' parables. It is similar to understanding the Hebraic chiasmi. Because the thoughts repeat themselves in a circular fashion but just in reverse order and in different terminology.
When Jesus gives a parable, He typically goes on to immediately describe what it means but in different terminology. All I am saying is that this is what Jesus is doing in Matthew 24:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [He seems to be describing events around the time of His coming - I posit the last 7 trumpets of Revelation, but are the before or after?]
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
[Ok the obvious questions are what are the tree, the branch and the leaves?]
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
[Again repeated thoughts - what things? the branch and its leaves? the last 7 trumpets?]

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

[if this is following the pattern of repeated thoughts then the generation he is speaking of must include the leaves of the fig tree...]
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.[generation shall pass and earth shall pass, but not my words... we see a common device here too - a play on words. This is traditionally how I have interpreted the passage, that the generation being spoken of is the generation of the earth, but I also like CSUGuy's reading.]
36 ¶But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. [this seems to be describing a day of wickedness before the angels gather the remnant elect from the 4 winds, but the rest needs to be included in a nonlinear analysis to be clearer.]

Attempts to use strictly "linear" analysis to understand this passage are bound to fail - the presentation is circular with several things going on. That is going to be the end of it for me as I am kinda irritated by what's happened in this thread, but I want the reader to know what I have tried to present. I would also like to be clear tho that it is not a fault of the OP.
Cheers

 

[chair]

I don't know anything about "linear" vs. "circular" view of God.

I will say that:

Analyzing who or what God is a Western, Christian pastime, based on Greek philosophical ideas. Though some of this exists in modern Judaism, it was not a major concern of the Biblical authors.

I am also convinced that being disturbed at contradictions in the Bible is a modern pastime. It apparently did not bother the ancient Hebrews much, if at all. They didn't have expectations of things being totally logical and consistent.

 

[csuguy]

Wrong - I underlined both - "given this" your comment is not at all appropriate.

You misunderstand - I didn't say only one was underlined. At any rate its a moot point - there was miscommunication end of story.

I did not say one way or the other. You are assuming again and trying to cloud the issue at hand with irrelevancies.

Well if you are that is a shame, it is an irrational position that results in all kinds of weird theologies. Hopeful you are not for your own sake.

This verse in Romans does not use the word "men" it talks about "all". You confuse yourself when you are inaccurate.
The verse also explains within itself that God (Jesus) is in a different category and is, in fact, the yardstick by which "all" are to be judged.

Whether it says "all men" or simply "all" the point remains: you can't just take it at face value. It needs to be analyzed to be understood - else you will end up with non-sense like saying that Jesus must have sinned for "all have sinned."

In the same way, it is non-sense to suppose that when it says that there were jews from all nations that it meant this in the literal sense of there being at least one Jew from every nation on earth. It is simply a historical fact that they knew nothing of the Americas and there were no Jews crossing the ocean to visit Rome from the Americas.

Taking the verse at "face value" teaches us - apart from God, all have sinned.

At face value "all" would include Jesus.

Again, please take this up with God and not me. Here is what He has to say on inerrancy and preservation:

Ps 12:6KJV, Ps 12:7KJV, Is 59:21KJV, Ps 100:5KJV, Is 40:8KJV, Luke 21:33KJV, 1 Pet 1:25KJV

There is no sense for you to have an opinion on Matthew 24, a very difficult chapter, until you learn the basics; God has preserved His Word without error.

The scriptures never say that scripture is innerant. In fact, the bible as we know it did not exist at the time when the individual works that compose the bible were written (obviously). There have been many competing cannonizations over the centuries. To this day, Catholics and Orthodox church include works generally rejected by Protestants. Martin Luther would have us exclude even more than we did. He didn't like James for example.

So tell me - which cannonization and translation is innerant if you are so confident? Which manuscript tradition is the right one? Obviously not all cannonizations can be innerant since some must exclude valid works and/or incorporate false ones. Again, there are differences between the different manuscript traditions from which we translate - and the translation process results in sometimes very different renderings.

Here's a passage that does talk about the scriptures in the old testament however:

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?​

So the scriptures themselves declare that there have been those who have falsely handled the Word of God, lying scribes who have modified it as they saw fit. Furthermore, if there is no fear of human corruption, then why does scripture give warning to those who would seek to modify it?

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.​

So if even the scriptures speak of scribes corrupting the Law and gives such dire warnings against modifying the scriptures - then how can you say that the scriptures are immune to human error/corruption? Obviously the scriptures themselves teach otherwise.

 

[Ben Masada]

In his book "The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity", Mike Davis says that, for him, the deciding factor about Christianity came down to Matthew 24:34.

If Jesus was Divine, He would not have made this prediction which obviously did not come true 1900 years ago. Either the Bible is untrustworthy or Jesus was wrong. Because of this the case against Christianity is "closed".

I, of course, like the KJV so here it is:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

If you make it personal and ask me, the false prophet was not Jesus but the Hellenist who wrote that gospel and the Church attributed it to Matthew the apostle. Evidence? Read Mat. 9:9. Matthew the apostle could have never written that gospel. Not only for that 3rd-person reference but also for the fact that a Jew would not write about Jesus as if he were a Greek demigod born of God with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18)

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't know anything about "linear" vs. "circular" view of God.

I will say that:

Analyzing who or what God is a Western, Christian pastime, based on Greek philosophical ideas. Though some of this exists in modern Judaism, it was not a major concern of the Biblical authors.

I am also convinced that being disturbed at contradictions in the Bible is a modern pastime. It apparently did not bother the ancient Hebrews much, if at all. They didn't have expectations of things being totally logical and consistent.

It is called religious evolution.

 

[chair]

It is called religious evolution.

Some find this disturbing. They would rather see a dead fossil than a live being.

 

[Desert Reign]

I must say I am actually dismayed that I keep responding to you.
I have never been rude nor crude to you. I simply challenged your interpretation, but your prior 2 responses to me thus far have been in part in this same haughty vein:
1. "So give me a good reason why I need to treat the rest of your post as if it wasn't methane from the same source. I don't mind if people who know what they are talking about criticise my arguments and CSUGuy happens to be such a person, is respected by me, and I am sure he will respond with a knowledgeable answer. You however apparently don't come into that category."
[and why is that? because I am LDS?]

Not at all. It is because what you said was gibberish. Or do you feel uncomfortable about being LDS?

2. "...It is pure gibberish. And disgraceful."
[In other words how dare I challenge the mighty DesertReign]
There is nothing disgraceful about trying to interpret Jesus from a Hebraic viewpoint. The disgraceful thing IMHO is doing what you are doing, by rudely dismissing my viewpoint without any attempt to address it or justify yourself.
You continue to show a complete disregard for what I am trying to say, and frankly ignorance of fairly common concepts/verbage used in Hebrew scholarship.
You continue to show a linear approach to analyzing these passages, and continue to allude to your superior intellect, so I am no longer posting for your benefit, but for the benefit of the truly open learners whom you claim to be one of here:

Listen. Before you start getting into highly esoteric ideas about linearity and circularity which are entirely subjective, you need to first approach with basic principles. What do the words mean, what is the basic context of the passage, what are the discourse markers.
These are the basic tools of any interpretation. You choose to ignore them and you choose to shun the discipline that they entail because you want to impose your own meaning on the text.
And although these are basic and indeed universal aspects of discourse, you have to label them as 'linear thinking' as if such a thing was somehow out of fashion or immoral or immature. I can tell you that there is nothing immature about these basic principles, nor are they particularly Greek or Hebrew or anything else. They are universal. What is immature is your own choice to ignore them and so to ignore sound discipline.

You can whinge and whine all you like but as long as you continue to disparage sound principles of interpretation as 'linear' I will continue to consider your comments as disgraceful. You can eulogise all you like that

The Hebrew mind was filled
with wonder at the mystery of God.

or quote other equally nebulous writers with axes to grind but this will not advance an understanding of the particular passage in question. It is nothing other than excuse for you to disagree with sound reasoning and disciplined enquiry.

 

[OCTOBER23]

This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY GENERATION BABY.

I AM A JEW AND I AM STILL HERE AND MY GENERATION IS STILL HERE.
HITLER COULD NOT GET RID OF US THEN AND THE MAHDI WILL NOT SUCCEED EITHER.

GENERATION MEANS A GROUP OF PEOPLE EXISTING AT A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
= THE JEWS EXISTED WHEN JESUS WAS ALIVE.

1. a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor

2. a group of individuals born and originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time.

 

[George Affleck]

So the scriptures themselves declare that there have been those who have falsely handled the Word of God...

Take your unbelief up with God.

This ends my conversations with you.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.
--------------
God takes little devils and makes angels out of them.

 

[csuguy]

Take your unbelief up with God.

This ends my conversations with you.

I never said I don't believe the scriptures - I do. Apparently you don't if you don't accept what scripture plainly tells us: that there have been scribes who purposefully modified God's Law. It warns against such modifications in Revelations so as to discourage people from doing so. As such you are in contradiction with scripture to assert that the scriptures are immune to human error and purposeful corruption. That said, the scriptures are one of the most well-preserved set of documents across the ages - with plenty of manuscripts from different dates that largely agree with one another. Most differences are spelling errors, or notes that were put in the margins and copied.

Our conversation may end here, but I hope you will consider those scriptures I provided instead of ignoring them so as to preserve your views over the truth.

 

[daqq]

That is what you are doing. Twisting verses to mean what you want them to mean, by use of what you call "typology".

No it is not twisting verses but rather simply a false accusation from one who refuses to answer the hard questions. Go back to page one and read my first post again: there is only one way all of those passages can be true. Or do you prefer to believe in a generational curse to the third and forth generation? It is because of such people, who refuse to rise to the occasion and answer the difficult dilemmas such as this, that we have so many heretical and errant doctrines polluting the pulpits and libraries of the world.

If context is your thing, then consider that the word Matthew uses for 'world' here is 'oikoumene' and it is the only time he uses it. All other occasions he uses the word 'kosmos'. Clearly he means something different. He means the whole of the inhabited world known to them, i.e. the Greek and Roman worlds, just as pretty much all people in the Greek and Roman worlds also meant by that word.

Then, your citing of the fig tree is surely just question begging. The discourse is clearly bounded by verses 1 to 3 at the beginning and initially completing in verse 14. The rest of the chapter is expansion of this core text and chapter 25 is further expansion and moving on to more general issues. So the context is clearly established as the fall of Jerusalem (or the temple).

You show by this statement alone that even though you fancy yourself some sort of mini scholar you still read Greek through your own thick black Desert Reign sunshades. I will come back to the reasoning below.

Not at all. It is because what you said was gibberish. Or do you feel uncomfortable about being LDS?

Listen. Before you start getting into highly esoteric ideas about linearity and circularity which are entirely subjective, you need to first approach with basic principles. What do the words mean, what is the basic context of the passage, what are the discourse markers.
These are the basic tools of any interpretation. You choose to ignore them and you choose to shun the discipline that they entail because you want to impose your own meaning on the text.
And although these are basic and indeed universal aspects of discourse, you have to label them as 'linear thinking' as if such a thing was somehow out of fashion or immoral or immature. I can tell you that there is nothing immature about these basic principles, nor are they particularly Greek or Hebrew or anything else. They are universal. What is immature is your own choice to ignore them and so to ignore sound discipline.

You can whinge and whine all you like but as long as you continue to disparage sound principles of interpretation as 'linear' I will continue to consider your comments as disgraceful. You can eulogise all you like that
or quote other equally nebulous writers with axes to grind but this will not advance an understanding of the particular passage in question. It is nothing other than excuse for you to disagree with sound reasoning and disciplined enquiry.

These are the discourse opening markers:

Mark 13:1 KJV
1. And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

Matthew 24:1-4 KJV
1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Do you not see a problem with these renderings already since you can also read it in the Greek? Say for example you were taking a geology class and you brought in some beautiful polished and precious stones to show your teacher. You approach your teacher with the stones in your hand, and say to him; Teacher, look at these magnificent precious stones! But he begins by responding to you, "Do you not see these stones?"

What would you think of him if he said this to you after you just showed him the stones? By the responses you have given here you would clearly think he was an idiot because of course you see the stones; IT WAS YOU WHO SHOWED THEM TO HIM.

Yet in your reading of the Greek text this is exactly what you do with the words of Yeshua so that you can keep your paradigm intact. You clearly do not care if your doctrine causes the Master Teacher to look foolish so long as you yourself look good and scholarly. Yet if we read the text from the Greek the way it is written we see that the AV KJV and mostly all the rest who follow suit clearly made a mistake for rendering the same exact form of blepo, (blepeto) in two different manners so as to support their own conclusions. If we read it in verse two the same way it reads in verse four then the meaning, direction, and inflection of the entire passage is changed. Now surely the wolverines here will accuse me once again of twisting their beloved writings but the truth is clearly that this passage has already been twisted in the minds of the readers by the translator-interpreters themselves:

Matthew 24:2 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Οὐ βλέπετε πάντα ταῦτα ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθήσεται
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/24-2.htm

Matthew 24:4 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ·
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/24-4.htm

We have in Matthew 24:2 "ou blepete", (negative) and again in Matthew 24:4 "blepete" (positive) but the form blepete is identical so why are they rendered differently in most all English translation-interpretations? It is clearly because of flesh minded physical paradigm blinders and because they fail to notice that their interpretations, (and indeed interpret is what they have done) make Yeshua look foolish just as likewise in the example given above about the geology teacher who foolishly and redundantly asks his student, "Do you not see these stones?" immediately after the student has just shown him the stones! Of course they see the stones, O ye blind leaders of the blind! :kookoo: :doh:

This is more correctly how the passage should read unless of course you do not mind the Teacher of Righteousness looking foolish so that you can keep your own apparent 70AD paradigm:

Matthew 24:1-4
1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, PAY NO HEED to all these things! verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, TAKE HEED that no man deceive you.

In other words what follows throughout the discourse has NOTHING to do with the destruction of the literal physical temple building made with the hands of men because the Master says, "PAY NO HEED to all these things!" Those things serve as nothing more than examples and typology for what he is about to expound and the words that Yeshua speaks will NEVER pass away. However the carnal man cannot perceive supernal things because he sees all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh and walks according to his belly like the serpent.

As for the supreme marker at the end of the discourse it always goes unnoticed and this appears to be true in your case likewise even though you now accuse others of the same things that you yourself have done right here while making your accusations. Yeshua does indeed answer the question, which was asked of him by his disciples in Matthew 24:3, concerning "the when" of the timing of the consummation of the age.

This is the final "punch line" statement of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew:

Matthew 26:1-2
1. And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2. Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

This is the answer to the opening question, O ye blind, supposing to lead the blind. :crackup:

:sheep: