Theosophus wrote:The generation to which Jesus was referring was "this generation" -- which has at least two possibilities: 1) He could have been referring to His own generation. In which case, something is obviously wrong because that generation has clearly passed. Most, if not all, early Christians thought this to be the case and fully expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. 2) The generation He was referring to was the same one He mentioned just a few verses earlier in each of the passages you cited. Note that He said, "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door." There are two clues here: first of all, He said the analogy was a parable - similar to an allegory. The items in parables have symbolic meaning. Second, why did He specifically use a fig tree as an example, rather than a generic tree? Very often the nation of Israel is referred to as a fig tree. That "fig tree's" branches became tender and put forth leaves in 1949 when Israel became a nation again. There is some debate as to what constitutes a generation, but I think we can all agree that if Jesus is true to His word, He will return within the lifetime of someone born before 1949.
That's a ridiculous amount of rationalization there... "Very often the nation of Israel is referred to as a fig tree." Oh please. And like a fig tree, israel was "tender" when it became a nation in 1949? Prophesy? LOL Was it referred to as a fig tree during the time of Jesus? You mix-and-match metaphors from completely different eras in an attempt to reconcile the contradictions. You can't honestly do this and claim it makes sense. Hey, I can tell you a story about how an elephant hatches from a chicken's egg, but it will involve a significant degree of very creative interpretation, and going back and forth from figurative to literal translation. That's just crazy.
If you apply common sense in the process of interpreting scripture it doesn't need so much elaborate exegesis. Jesus talking about impending judgment day is not any different then than it was among those now who speak of the same thing. You can't get people motivated if you say, "Jesus is coming some time in the next 700 years... get your act together!" So their standard policy was to scare people into conformity by suggesting the end was upon them any day now. They've been doing it ever since, and every single one of them has been wrong. And entire religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses have been created to cover the mistakes made by earlier "prophets" who made second coming claims that turned out to be false.
Theosophus wrote:Now about the "mustard seed" example: To someone living in first century Judea, the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to them. Even if Jesus had known of the orchid seed, to mention that to His audience would have been unnecessarily confusing. Jesus spoke in the terms they knew. His point was that something very small could grow into something much larger. He wasn't teaching science, but faith. Mustard seeds don't grow into trees? That depends on what you call a tree. Let's not quibble over semantics. According to Webster's, a mustard plant can be properly called a tree.
[Noah] Webster was notorious for promoting Christianity. You can't count on his publication as any objective reference. For example, under the word "light" Webster adds "Christ" as a definition. (see "Noah Webster and the American Dictionary" By David Micklethwait) Webster was famous for "Christianizing" modern language - he even added a bunch of flowery crap in the definition of "lion".
In any case, If Jesus is God and god is all-knowing, then god knows that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. If he wanted to make a statement, that's fine, but he didn't say "smallest of the seeds you have" or "smallest seed known to you". He said "smallest of all seeds." Hardly something an "all-knowing" deity would say, because in that point it would be a lie. And we all know that god doesn't like lies.
You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is a liar, or the book was written by men based on their exclusive knowledge (and imagination) at the time.
