Posted on 04/08/2008 9:31:51 AM PDT by topcat54
Jesus predicted it 37 years before it happened. Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, who heard Paul's testimony at Caesarea (Acts 26), tried hard to prevent it, as did the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (our main source of first-century information). But the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple in A.D. 70 happened nevertheless, and it was a catastrophe with almost unparalleled consequences for Jews, Christians, and, indeed, all of subsequent history. It compelled a whole new vector for synagogue (not Temple) Judaism, it submerged the Jewish homeland for the next 19 centuries under foreign domination, it helped foster the split between church and synagogue, and it set the stage for rampant prophetic speculation about the End Times that continues to the present day. Few episodes in history have had that sort of impact.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
“Jesus predicted it 37 years before it happened.” He also warned His followers to flee before the city was sealed off. Those that did survived.
a slightly more revelant point to current debates is that the muslim ‘scholars’ believe that this didn’t really happen. At all. Ever. No Solomon. No Jews. Nobody but muslims were ever in Jerusalem.
"15 Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened." (Matthew 24)
I was thinking of Luke where Jesus said when they saw the armies they were to flee. Happily one account covers details the other didn’t.
Sounds like the character O’Brien in “1984”. “History is whatever the party says it is”. Then Winston realizes he’s arguing with an insane man.
interesting topic...
The audiences were different. Matthew was written to Jewish Christians who would immediately understand the symbolic reference to the abomination of desolation From Daniel. Luke was written primarily to the former gentiles among the faithful.
Nonsense -- Luke's account took place in 70 AD, but Matthew's is future history.
And the basis for calling the comments “nonsense” would be what? Would you care to explain?
"Luke's account took place in 70 AD, but Matthew's is future history."
The other poster is saying that 70 AD was after the event. I believe, from my Hannegraffe readings, that 70 AD was the exact year that this happened.
One book of the bible was foretelling, the other telling what already happened.
Nonsense. It's the same narrative from two different writers for two different audiences, one Jewish (Mathew) and one gentile (Luke). That parallels are unmistakable.
Only your futurist preconceptions are keeping you from seeing something so obvious.
You must accept his overall thesis to believe they are speaking of two different events separated by thousands of years. The thesis must be strong enough to discount/explain all the obvious parallelisms between the two texts.
Ask him to articulate the thesis which requires us to believe they are two different events.
Repeating one’s self is hardly an explanation but thanks anyway.
Not exactly. They were both prophecies of future events. Jesus was prophesying two separate events here, one recorded by Luke and one by Matthew. Luke's prophecy is of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the subsequent Diaspora, and the Times of the Gentiles. It's right here:
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." [Luke 21:20-24]
Matthew's prophecy is about an event of great tribulation that will occur after the Times of the Gentiles when the Jews are back in the land, and after they see abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet:
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. " [Matthew 24:15-18]
Luke's prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD and is still being fulfilled as we are still in the Times of the Gentiles. Matthew's prophecy of the abomination of desolation and great tribulation is still future.
No thesis necessary -- only the logical reading and comparison of the Luke to Matthew in the light of subsequent history.
Are you saying then that neither account has prophetic meaning?
Please fellas, you can’t carry on a conversation THROUGH me, with each other, yes, with me, yes, but not through me. I’m not a conduit and don’t speak for anyone but myself. thanks.
The two accounts are of the same event. The narrative has prophetic meaning since it pointed to events in the near future from Jesus and His disciples’ perspective. "This generation will by no means pass away till all things take place." Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple and the end of the old covenant system, which we know happened in AD70 when the armies of Rome trampled Jerusalem underfoot and leveled the temple. It has not prophetic significance from our perspective, Jesus was not speaking directly to us.
The futurists need to jump through all kinds of hoops to resurrect the Roman empire and rebuild the temple so it can be destroyed again simply because they deny the parallel between Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.