RussianM3_dude

I just have a quick question, if the gospels were written after 70CE, how come they never mentioned the fall of Jerusalem?

John Kesler

See Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Matthew 22:7.

RussianM3_dude

They mention it?

jakejonesiv

And when you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand.
Luke 21:20.

Amaleq13

Why would describe it they when the entire story being told takes place before the destruction of Jerusalem?

That said, the prophecy placed in the mouth of Jesus answers for the evangalist's audience the question: "Why wouldn't the Son of God have known about the imminent destruction and why wouldn't he have warned his followers?"

yalla

"Mark" 12.1-11
Also in "Mark" there is the allegory of the vineyard where each element represents something.
Such as:
the owner = god
the tenants= the Jews
the vineyard=Israel
the servants=the prophets
the beloved son = JC

"What will the owner [god] of the vineyard [Israel] do? He will come and destroy the tenants ["destruction of Jerusalem et al''] and give the vineyard to others [followers of JC] .....more"

cheers
yalla

Mageth

Jesus was born in the Winter, and crucified in the Spring. Apparently not much happened worth mentioning in the Fall.

Johann_Kaspar

It is a mistake to assume that Mk 13, Mt 24 ant Mt 22:7 are about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Gamera

But if it's ex post facto, you would expect the author to be less cryptic and revel in the details. If he knew when and how Jerusalem had fallen as he wrote the gospel, he could make Jesus look real good by giving juicy details, about the flight of Berenice, the arrival of Titus, the Sicarii executions, the Temple fire, maybe the Greek bird sacrifices that started the whole thing. He could have even given the date, making Jesus prophesy more impressive.

In addition, the author could have commented on it, saying something to the effect that "and in fact Jesus' prophesy came true, proving once again he was divine."

But there's none of that. Just a vague prophesy about the destruction of a city, in the vague way prophets often predict the ruin of city the rejects a prophet.

I think assuming Jesus was refering to the Roman sack of Jerusalem may be an ex post facto ex post facto.

LoungeHead

Because they are fiction.