Just pointing out that the same phrase used to describe "this generation"--seeking after a sign--is later used by Sha'ul to describe the Jews as a people. I've also shown from your own example that the genea haute was compared to a people, the Ninevites, so you are in error to say that I presented only one supporting point.
I would also point out that even you must acknowledge that "this generation" implies the Jewish people rather than simply a unit of time, since God's judgment most assuredly did not fall on "this generation" of the Romans, for example, in 70 AD. That is, you must understand the term to mean "this generation of Jews" even within your own interpretation--I'm simply pointing out that you go beyond the meaning of the term or phrase to limit Yeshua's words to that generation only of the people He was addressing.
Let's put this back on you: Can you show where in Yeshua's use of the term "this generation" it is impossible to understand Him as referring to the Jews as a people rather than of a specific period of time? If you can't show the impossibility of such an interpretation, than preterism's chief proof-text is shown to be mere pretext, and you have to concede the argument.
Jesus was perfectly consistent in speaking of Jonah to that generation, the ones who actually saw Him come forth from the earth after three days.
Simply restating your position does not constitute a valid argument unless you also address my points.
But Paul's usage does not make Jesus’ words ambiguous in the least.
And your insistence to the contrary does not erase an ambiguity that is acknowledged in at least two major lexicons, one of which I provided a link to, or to the use of the word genea in the LXX.
Please address all of my points on the use of the word genea or concede that it can indeed refer to a people as well as to a unit of time.
Have a great weekend!
Perhaps I’m missing something, but where does Paul use genea auth in the context of 1 Cor. 1:22?
In fact Paul never uses the phrase “this generation” in the epistles. So, while it may be true that Paul is indicating a general condition about signs and Jews, that does not change Jesus’ specific words directed at that immediate generation of Jews. And Paul hardly makes Jesus’ “consistently ambiguous”. Citing one verse by Jesus as an example of ambiguity hardly does the word justice.
To add insult to your injury, let me quote Hebrews:
“Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, 'They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.'” (Heb. 3:10)
The context makes it clear the subject -- “that generation” (genea ekeinh) -- is the specific generation of Jews who wandered and died in the wilderness because of their sin against God. Not the entire race or people of the Jews. This confirms the correct understanding of Deut 1:35 as well as Jesus’ use of the phrase.
So, speaking of “exegetical legs” we are still waiting to see your.
Please address all of my points on the use of the word genea or concede that it can indeed refer to a people as well as to a unit of time.
I don’t need to address anything yet since you have not demonstrated from the Scripture any discernable ambiguity on Jesus’ part. You really need to address all my items before I truly have to respond. E.g., in the light of Exodus 20:5 why is God permitted to bring His wrath upon a far future generation of Jewish people.
Just to add more thing to your conundrum, I was speaking from the text of the Bible to counter that you missed the point on the phrase "this generation".
Lexicons, while helpful, only give a range of possibilities for the meaning of a word. I have never denied that “genea” can mean something like “race”, although it is difficult to discern that meaning from most examples in the NT. However, you’ll note that most translations give “generation” (“the whole multitude of men living at the same time”, Thayer) as the meaning (KJV, 37 times, NAS 42 times). It is never translated “race”. Once the KJV translates it “nation” and once the NAS translates it “kind”.
But I’m unaware of any lexicon that deals with the phrase “this generation”. Possibility and probably are two different things. Merely quoting a lexicon is not definitive. Ultimately the meaning is left to the interpreter.
I see no ambiguity necessary or implied in Jesus' use of the phrase. And until I get something substantive from you that actually deals with Jesus' words, I'll stick by that view.