PeterR

Hmmmm. The first generation could be the generation of fathers who saw 1914, then the generation of their sons who lived long enough to see the spirit-anointed organization work through a governing body in the 1970's. And as long as the spirit-anointed governing body are alive on earth, we are still in the one generation.
So we have the Generation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit-Anointed, and the three are ONE Generation. It has a certain "ring" to it!

JWinsider - I wish it were possible to upvote your comments more than just the once. Several things you have written in this and related threads recently are very encouraging because they square directly with scripture and reason. You probably are aware that many students of the Bible have reached identical (or very similar) conclusions based on an unhindered reading of God's Word.
Thank you.
 
 
Bruceq - for sure it's an identifier, just as Jesus said it would be. He didn't actually say that it would identify a religion. He said it would identify people as Christians.
Does that dilute Christianity, or negate the need for Christian association and activity? Not at all.
But perhaps it should make us think about when the wheat and weeds are actually bundled according to Jesus' parables.
 

I don't align myself to a group of men. I seek a valid Christian brotherhood. I can't speak for why others choose the faiths they choose. But I can share my faith. If it is attractive to them, they will seek to learn more. Many people, especially Catholics from your examples, are Catholics because that's how they were raised. But Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses remind them through the process of going out publicly from door to door that there are other options out there, should they seek a change. Some find that attraction through better doctrine, and some through finding a loving Christian brotherhood that excels their current experience.
I personally think that JWs are doing the better job in setting the example of managing a worldwide public ministry. But, as you probably know, I would also welcome an adjustment to three or four non-major doctrines. I don't consider them major, although since one of them is our set of chronology doctrines, some JWs might. Even though I don't think they are critical, Jehovah knows that people will always be curious to see if there is some bit of calculating, in-depth research that might reveal the secrets of the ages. But I also know that Witnesses are not "stuck" on these doctrines. We've made terrible, stupid mistakes, and even promoted some false prophecies over these doctrines in the past, but as soon as they are proved false, they are dismissed. In general our belief in a "revealed" end-times chronology is intended to bolster activity and urgency and watchfulness. Perhaps it works for some people. I think it's the wrong motivation, but I don't know that any other motivation would work better for most of us. 
Also, I'm not one of those Witnesses who judges the members of others religions as deserving of death at Armageddon. I fully expect that it's more likely that all "religion" as organizations will break down during the Great Tribulation. But the ways in which an organization would remain united under such conditions will favor those individuals who came out of organizations that prepared and anticipated the troubles in some way.

If I was theoretically in "a room" at some point, you have no idea whereabouts at the table I might have been sitting TrueTomHarley.
Nevertheless, it's not relevant to the points I'm making and I have no inclination to be baited by your throwing mud at the wall to see if anything sticks.
You are constantly diverting from the scriptural aspect of the discussion and making it a personal matter, which although not surprising to me, ought to be a red flag to readers. This is a common tactic when a person has no scriptural or moral argument.
 
Slander is a very strong accusation TrueTomHarley. And you throw it around like confetti? Please point to a post where I have slandered the GB or any other person, or calm down and show the strength of character to withdraw such a statement.
 
When I cry, I cry like a grown man. And any grown man should cry if he sees people being hurt. But many of them don't, having had their hearts hardened to a "greater cause".
But I can assure you that your personal comments here do not affect me emotionally in the slightest.
 
 
 

Me too. But I thank him for the food that was available to make the meal. If my wife burns it or adds way too much salt I don't pretend that God did the cooking.

The "signs of the times" are EXACTLY the same in both contexts.
But as you already know, I still read that portion of Matthew 24 in the same way that Charles Taze Russell and dozens of other Bible commentators have read it: That Jesus was asked for a sign of the end times, and he told them not to be fooled by things like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, because all these things would happen just as they always have. He said not to be fooled because these types of "signs" were not going to help them understand the time of his visitation (parousia). It would come as unexpectedly as a thief in the night, and a thief doesn't give a sign of his coming.
The part that Russell ignored was that Jesus also said that no one should say that Jesus had already returned, but that you just can't see him, because when he returns, his parousia will be as visible and as suddenly unexpected as lightning that shines from one horizon all the way to the other.
This is why Jesus built up to the point where he said, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken. "THEN THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in heaven."
 

I thought it might be useful to note the differences in the printed version of the Insight article, and the recently updated online version of the Insight article. Words from the original Insight article that are no longer included in the updated version are highlighted in bold/red. Words added only to the updated version are highlighted in bold/blue :
*** it-1 p. 918 Generation ***  [Printed version]
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies.
...
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.
The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined in Matthew chapter 24, Mark chapter 13, and Luke chapter 21.
*** it-1 p. 918 Generation *** [with online changes]
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies.
...
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. So his comment about “this generation” logically had an application down to 70 C.E. However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence.—Mt 24.
 
The primary correction being made here is very vague about the definition of "generation" because the Insight book was already being written at a time when the doctrine was in flux.
The actual reason for the correction is that this portion of Matthew 24 was temporarily seen as ONLY applying to a future generation, not the generation that Jesus was speaking to, which was a generation that would see the fulfillment in 37 years. Note that both articles are the same in the beginning portion, quoted below, that was left out at the point where the ellipses were placed in the quotes above:
When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.
What the original was saying was that although the context of Matthew 24 speaks of "this generation" twice, once in Matthew 23:36 and once in Matthew 24:34, they mean something different in both cases, so you have to look at the context. The printed version of the Insight book is saying that only Matthew 23:36 refers to the 37-year generation of Jesus' day ending in 70 C.E., but when Jesus says almost the same thing again in Matthew 24:34, then this time he is referring only to the future "1914" generation. Note where the words "however" and "also" are added and omitted in the two versions.
In the updated online version, Insight is now saying that Jesus was simultaneously referring to both historical contexts at the same time: 70 C.E. which saw the end of the Jewish system of things,  and ALSO the generation that sees the end of the entire system of things at the end of his parousia. 
The value of this updated point is that we now have the backing of the Watch Tower publications to show that Jesus used the same word for both contexts. Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.
For example, it seemed that Jesus had told that generation that they (or at least many of them) would experience the tribulation upon Jerusalem in their own lifetime because the end would come upon that generation. Now if it had taken 140 years instead of 37, then we might rightly look for an interpretation of "generation" that could be stretched somehow to two lifetimes. But if the end of the Jewish system really had come in 173 C.E. (instead of 70) and we knew that Jesus was referring to a two-lifetime generation, then what right would we have to claim that Jesus could ONLY be referring to a 40 to 70 year generation in the case of the "1914 generation"? If another religion was teaching such an inconsistency, we would obviously deride them for their lack of ability in "handling the word of truth aright." (2 Tim 2:15)

.
.
Bruceq is probably right ....
If we are going to REFUSE to use the word "generation" like Jesus meant it ...  which all those listening INSTANTLY understood without a million word debate ....... the way the word has been used for FOUR THOUSAND and more years, and is used today by EVERYBODY on the planet ..... except the GB .. it's like milking a mouse, because you need the butter.
... or a squirrel.

I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. But this is the second one for me now.
So if anyone thinks I started this and haven't replied I can assure you I wasn't even aware that this topic existed until a couple of seconds ago.

That's a fair attempt to put it into your own words. What you are proposing is a "less stretched" version of the official doctrine.
First of all if this was how it was applied then we would be allowing for a few years beyond 1914, rather than 50 or so.
This is how it would fit into the evolution of the doctrine. I'm not going to dig out all the references, but a bottled history would look like:
1. in the 70's the "generation" had to be those who were old enough to see and comprehend the events of 1914.
2. since #1 didn't work out, later on it was decided that being born any time before 1914 would suffice
3. since #2 was looking shaky we took a break and detached the "generation" from a human lifespan altogether
4. since #3 didn't have the same sense of urgency a new formula was needed ...
Now if they had gone with your version they could have moved from #2 to "... or born a few years after". This would have, according to your example, bought maybe 10 years, to be generous. That would have probably been insufficient. So they indeed took your model, but streeeetched it out to something that no longer fit your model. By using the same words as your model while glossing over the actual damage to the language Jesus used, we end up with a kind of fudged version of what you're proposing.
What I believe it's important for you to note is the actual difference between your model, and the way it's being applied to a much longer time period.
 
Yes, but then you would have switched the question from "who was the generation who lived through 911" to a different question altogether.
It's effectively a verbal sleight of hand. If your audience isn't paying attention they don't notice when you make the switch. They know at the end that something's wrong, because that's not what "generation" means, but because each step you took sounded roughly okay and they didn't notice the step that made the switch, some of them end up accepting it.
 
So see what you did there? You took the original clause of "witnessed the event of 911", and then you introduced a new clause "contemporary of the 2001 student". And rather than connect the two clauses together by an AND condition as the logic would demand, you connected them by an OR condition.
Let me attempt to illustrate:
I can define dolphins as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae".
I can expand my definition to say that dolphins can be defined as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae" AND "animals that swim".
But if I substitute an OR for that AND, then I open the door to say that "clown fish" are "dolphins".
What you are doing is attaching an acceptable sub-clause to your "generation of 911", but then uncoupling it from the primary clause as if it can stand alone. But it cannot do so without doing damage to the sense of the primary clause.