An interpretation of "this generation shall not pass"

[George Antonios]

Ecclesiastes 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.

 

[MB]

The fig tree cannot refer to Israel or even Judah as luke gives us the complete phrase, the fig tree "and all the trees".

So what was the fig tree and all the trees the sign of? The Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem
What would happen when they saw the sign? The temple would be destroyed. The city desolated.

Not some future temple, but the temple that Jesus had told the Pharisees would be left to them desolate, (Matt 23) which the disciples could not believe, showing Jesus the large stones. Jesus answered them that not one stone would be left upon another. THAT TEMPLE.

It happened within that generation. Matthew 23:36
The judgement was to come upon "YOU", those he was addressing. Matthew 23:35

You have ignored that the temple has not been so desolated. The whaling still exist. Some think it is the outer wall of the Gentiles side of the temple. This theory cannot be true because part of it is still standing. Not to mention there has been no end time Beast or Anti Christ. This whole theory of yours seems Agnostic to me.
MB

 

[rsr]

I don't know where you are getting your information. The Wailing Wall is indeed a retaining wall for for the Temple Mount, not a wall of the Second Temple. The Roman soldiers profaned the Holy of Holies and took the furnishings from the most holy place, as demonstrated by Titus' triumphal arch in Rome.

 

[Aaron]

Ecclesiastes 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.

Says one who is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can give a reason, except mine is not the laughter of a fool. So, let's take a look at your hermeneutic for a moment.

The Bible is only symbolic when it tells you it's symbolic or when it's impossible to take literally.
​

1. Sez who?

2. Is there no other way to recognize symbolism other than being told like an elementary school child? The Bible does speak to us as little children often, but much is written to those who are of full age and have their senses exercised. Did the writers of the New Testament recognize symbolism in literal things that didn't have the symbolism sticker attached?

3. When you say something is impossible to be taken literally, what you're really saying is that it's impossible for you at your present stage of learning and development as a child of God, and at your level of knowledge of the world around you. You basically make yourself and your own impressions the criterion of when something is symbolic or not.

Thus, your hermeneutic is an arbitrary presupposition created to prop up your own illusions.

 

[Aaron]

If one approaches the the account in Matthew and just takes the language at face value, then He said that many of the individuals there would be living when the prophecy was fulfilled. So we can approach it one of two ways. 1) The spectacular events haven't happened, so the generation isn't a generation in the genealogical sense. 2) The prophecy was fulfilled before that generation (in the genealogical sense died out), therefore the spectacular events are symbolic of something else.

Those insisting (<--note the word 'insisting' as opposed to suggesting) on the first approach, thinking it's the obvious one, are really projecting their own biases and notions onto the Scriptures.

Those open to the second approach are actually asking some questions about the nature of prophecy and prophetic language, and indeed are finding there is this kind of symbolism in prophecy.

Something to note is, in the synoptic gospels, Christ is telling the Twelve how they themselves will be treated during this time and how they should respond. In the Gospel of John, which was written twenty to thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem omits this teaching altogether.

Some will point to Revelation as being John's account thereof. It isn't. But that's a discussion for another thread.

And when one takes into account that Christ told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God doesn't come with observation, but is internal, then insisting on external, spectacular and observable events to accompany the coming of His kingdom might be casting aspersions on Christ's truthfulness.

The second approach seems to be the correct one, and one complicit with the whole of the teachings in the Gospels and elsewhere.

 

[MB]

I don't know where you are getting your information. The Wailing Wall is indeed a retaining wall for for the Temple Mount, not a wall of the Second Temple. The Roman soldiers profaned the Holy of Holies and took the furnishings from the most holy place, as demonstrated by Titus' triumphal arch in Rome.

I disagree Archeologist have proven it to be the west wall of the temple grounds appointed to the Gentiles. It's called the outer court yard The Jews them selves believe it so and is why they pray there or should I say wail there. You know those guys with the little box of prayers on there head. The Jews had to fight to be allowed to pray there. It's still part of the temple grounds as a whole.
MB