doubtingthomas

I've been mulling over Matthew 24 alot in recent days, and I've come across something that has been bothering me. In the chapter Jesus makes a bevy of predictions about a number of things from the destruction of the temple to his second coming, and then closes with the infamous "..this generation shall not pass, till all these things are fufilled." From what I understand at that time a generation was around 40 years, and if you look at when jesus spoke that message(around 30 AD) to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD then it appears that Jesus was correct in his prediction. Now I understand that Jesus was obviously wrong concerning the prophesy of his second coming in this passage, but can anyone tell me how he managed to know exactly when the temple would be destoryed.

Vorkosigan

Matthew was written more than a decade after the temple's destruction. The author simply put that in Jesus' mouth.

Vorkosigan

dantonac

If that is true then why the prediction about the 2nd return?

Magus55

Actually, Matthew was written before 70 A.D ( more like 50-60 A.D). Matthew also would have most certaintly mentioned the Temple destruction had it been written after the fact. He was a Jew afterall.

doubtingthomas

That's a weak argument at best. Mainly because it's hard to put an exact date on the gospels, and most scholars would say it was probably written before 70 AD, though a later date is also possible. Also, as it has already been pointed out, it wouldn't make sense for the author to interpolate a prophecy in order to make Jesus seem correct and then in the same chapter leave in a prophecy that proves Him wrong. There has to be a better explanation than this.

Vinnie

First of all this right here is rubbish:

"""""and most scholars would say it was probably written before 70 AD"""""

The VAST MAJORITY of all critical scholars date Matthew 80-100 c.e.

One a tiny amount of critical scholars would date Matthe earlier (e.g. Donald Hagner).

Second, Mark is our earliest accounbt of Jesus' temple prediction. Thus focus on that account instead of a later on who copied him.

Third, any Jew in 30, 40 or 50 c.e. of Christian putting words in Jesus' mouth who didn't like the way the Temple was being run could have created a "prophecy" that God would overturn the temple soon. This is little more than coincidence. Naturally God wouldn't let such wickedness stand. ALso an imminent and urgent eschatology about the end of the world could easily assume such destruction without supernatural knowledge of it.

Fourth, when Jesus said "this generation" we cannot assume he meant "starting with all one year olds". He may have been looking at a group of children or even a group of old people as he thought the end was imminent. Or he may have envisioned an average age of 20. Who knows. Please tell us how you managed to decide the original context and meaning of Jesus' saying?

That is a problem .The context and exact nuance of most of the sayings materials original form is LOST.

Fifth, Jesus made false predictions there. Thus the temple was razed but not in the manner he suggested." Also, many scholars will tell you this is false: ""Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

This did not happen. Either the prediction was made inaccurately before the fact and was coincidentally correct on some details or a writer outside Palestine who had only heard reports of what happened to the temple wrote this saying into the mouth of Jesus after-the fact.

Sixth, there is no valid evidence any of the texts that5 contain Jesus' temple prediction date before the fact. Mark "could" but this has not been shown conclusively.


I'll stop here for now and see how it goes...

Vinnie

Vinnie

Edited...caught somethign I missed...

Amaleq13

The author of Matthew is careful to have Jesus tell his audience that many things, including the fall of the Temple, will precede the arrival of the Son and the final end of the Last Days. The duration of "the tribulation of those days" is not specified but the author certainly describes a lot of stuff taking place (eg rumors of war, actual wars, false Christs). To give the early Christians some credit, there was plenty going for several decades after the fall of the Temple to justify the belief that "the tribulation" was continuing.

From the very first, the history of Christianity has been a continual attempt to explain why their date hasn't shown up yet. Two thousand years later and they still won't accept the fact that they aren't going to get kissed.

Vinnie

Paul used a frigging HARVEST METAPHOR. Jesus is the "first-fruits". As Dom Crossan remarked 2,000 years later at the Jesus at 2000 debate, "how is your metaphor doing, Paul?"

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I place all the blame for the "sense of imminent return" of all subsequent Christianity at the feet of Paul.

Of course, without that belief, you have to wonder how motivated he would have been to share his gospel everywhere.