Norseman82 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1046117' date='Aug 18 2006, 02:14 PM'] WHY is Matthew 24 there, if not for our edification and warnings? [/quote] One question about something Jesus said in Matthew 24 that has perplexed me. Jesus says in v. 34 that the present generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Based on the text, He was referring to His audience in 33 AD. Was Jesus speaking non-literally, or is there someone still alive from 33 AD (aside from Jesus), or was Jesus wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1049334' date='Aug 23 2006, 11:40 PM']One question about something Jesus said in Matthew 24 that has perplexed me. Jesus says in v. 34 that the present generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Based on the text, He was referring to His audience in 33 AD. Was Jesus speaking non-literally, or is there someone still alive from 33 AD (aside from Jesus), or was Jesus wrong?[/quote]St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, touches upon this topic in one of the questions [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/210604.htm"](link)[/url]:[quote]Our Lord said (Matthew 24:34): "I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done": which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to "the generation of those that believe in Christ."[/quote] Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary ([url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id42.html"]link[/url]) mentions St. John Chrysostom as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1049405' date='Aug 23 2006, 11:40 PM'] St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, touches upon this topic in one of the questions [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/210604.htm"](link)[/url]: Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary ([url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id42.html"]link[/url]) mentions St. John Chrysostom as well. [/quote] My apologies, I should have clarified that I wanted to hear Eutychus' response to my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Personally, I think this thread would be much better if it was titled, "Short Sheeting [i]During[/i] The End Times; A Guide to Practical Jokes and High Jinks of the Apocalypse" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franimus Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I've heard that that verse refers to all the [u]signs[/u] mentioned, not the second coming/end of the world itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 (edited) My grandmother believes this. The biggest problem with her view is that she likes to imagine Jesus playing favortism, by taking the true Christians first and then coming back for the others later. [quote]Revelation 20 speaks of Satan being bound and Christ reigning with His saints for a thousand years (a millennium). Many Protestants understand this 1,000-year reign literally and believe that it will occur on earth in the future. They also cite 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and try to make an historical connection between something called the rapture when Christians are taken up and this millennium. [b]Response:[/b] There are three basic interpretations regarding Revelation 20 and the millennium.” The Church has traditionally taught one commonly known as “amillennialism,” which means that the reign of God began with Christs death and resurrection and the “thousand years” is a figurative number to describe the reign of His Church (2 Pt. 3:8-10; Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 664, 668-682). [/quote] you can find the above article [url="http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=107"]here[/url] My grandmother still believes this and at one time a long time ago both my parents believed in this. Now they are anglo-catholics. So it spurred me to a long study on it... This understanding of the "last days" differs from that of those who believe in the Rapture. Catholics agree that there will definitely be an "end of time" and that history as we know it will one day be complete. But we also recognize that each of us will face the end of our time on earth, and that this should, in many ways, concern us more than the end of the world (see CCC 1007) After seeing natural disasters in our country, and watching my grandma and grandpa clutching their bibles waiting to fade into thin air, I realized that the method of the Rapture (yes, even all three methods.) Fills dispensational Christians with a [b]false sense of security.[/b] A why polish-brass-on-a-sinking-ship mentality. This is not called by God to be Christian-like because, this horror, fear, and paranoia spills over into their ministry and then they don't proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. They scare people into believeing in Jesus or the individual wont become raptured and thus [i]left behind[/i].( That statement has nothing to do with the novels written.) The puzzling and sometimes shocking images of Revelation are interpreted in clever, bizarre, and often laughable ways. The mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is seen in bar codes, credit cards, computer chips and laser beams. Most Catholics who encounter such misinterpretations usually scratch their heads and steer clear of the biblical books that deal with apocalyptic themes, Daniel and Revelation. They are content to let their non-Catholic friends battle over these confusing matters. There is an issues that has always stuck at me, even before I was Catholic and it was. Why would Christians take the secound coming of Christ and turn it into a [b]secound and third coming?[/b] This seems to make no sense. [b]"The Rapture is a biblical and orthodox belief."[/b] (This view has been told to me since I was 14.) LaHaye declares, in Rapture Under Attack, that virtually all Christians who take the Bible literally expect to be raptured before the Lord comes in power to this earth. This would have been news to Christians both Catholic and Protestant living prior to the 18th century, since the concept of a pretribulation Rapture was unheard of prior to that time. Vague notions had been considered by the Puritan preachers Increase (1639-1723) and Cotton Mather (1663-1728), and the late 18th-century Baptist minister Morgan Edwards, but it was John Nelson Darby who solidified the belief in the 1830s and placed it into a larger theological framework Edited August 25, 2006 by Convert4888 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell. Morons think insults will win converts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Baa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Sheep are dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 [quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1050351' date='Aug 25 2006, 11:42 AM'] Sheep are dumb [/quote] I think someone is a little nervous that Jesus didn't mention cows going anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 [i]limbus carnerus[/i], anyone? (the limbo of the cows) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1050417' date='Aug 25 2006, 02:29 PM'] (the limbo of the cows) [/quote] ...how low can you go? Cows don't limbo. duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1049334' date='Aug 23 2006, 11:40 PM'] One question about something Jesus said in Matthew 24 that has perplexed me. Jesus says in v. 34 that the present generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Based on the text, He was referring to His audience in 33 AD. Was Jesus speaking non-literally, or is there someone still alive from 33 AD (aside from Jesus), or was Jesus wrong? [/quote] Good question! Jerusalem did fall, the temple was torn down, in that generation. And, Jesus did appear to his disiples. But wasn't the second coming. I'm perplexed, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 This whole section is an indictment of Pharisetical behavior. Jesus lists their final sin as the murder of the righteous.The cup of iniquity is finally filled as the pharisees start to plot the death of Jesus. By rejecting Jesus, they pour the accumulated cup upon themselves. The fall of Jerusalem was the culmination of centuries of disobedience. Early christians took the warning literally, when Rome appeared they took to the hills, and survived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eutychus Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Most confuse the "Olivet Disourse" in Matthew and Luke thinking they are the same, and that is uderstandable...given the matching points. However, there is a critical difference. Luke's telling is a near telling focusing in upon BEFORE. Matthews differs in that it is a far telling focusing in on AFTER. The Christian/Jews heeded Luke's version and skeedaddled to Perea BEFORE the Romans got to Jerusalem to destroy it. And we will be removed { believers not denomination } via the Harpazo, BEFORE the Tribulation. Thosee that disbelieve this are welcome to stay and witness the tribulation firsthand. The rest of us will be cheering you on from the celestial balcony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now