Prophecy for Buzsaw

I'll just go over your points1) is trivial2) You have shown no indication that Jesus intends the disciples to understand this "stuff" is "way out in the future" - only that it is not immediately imminent. The indications in the text support a timescale of years or decades - not centuries. For instance Jesus explicitly warns the disciples that they should stay alert for the signs as if it could come in their lifetime (Mark 13:33).3) I accpet that the prophecy is not JUST about the Temple - obviously. However, I do not accept that the destruction of the Temple comes at the beginning. There is NO statement to this effect. So far as I can see your claim is based on nothing more than a questionable reading of Matthew 24:3 which contradicts a plain reading of the other Gospels. Inserting a questionable reading of a statement that is likely an addition made by the author of Matthew is hardly a legitimate interpetation of Mark or Luke.4) Relying on a composite account is questionable, as it does not allow for later additions. It also violates your rule about requiring 2 or 3 witnesses. It is better to go with the material common to all 3 or at least 2 of the 3.5) This is your assumption. It is hard to see how you could have evidence to support it - and you can place very little weight on it. If your argument relies on this then you have a problem.

1) Sorry but pointing out that your assertion is so obvious that there is nothing to discuss is certainly a response.2) OK lets go over your items and remmember that they could overlap.
There's nothing excusive about wars and false Christs, for instance.1) and 2) could easily be fulfilled in a few years.3) World War II only LASTED from 1939 to 1945. Even allowing for a slower pace in the ancient world a few decades is fine. Alexander the Great ruled for only 13 years.
Looking at a timeline of Rome the 70 years from 30 AD included:
a) The Invasion of Britain
b) The conquest and loss of Armenia
c) The Iceni revolt
d) The Jewish revolt
e) Civil war (the Year of Four Emperors)
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_378/Four.Emps.html
f) More wars in Britain
g) Wars against the DaciansAnd that's just the Romans - and probably not all of their conflicts.4) It doesn't say that famines and Earthquakes strike in MANY different places and since there is at least one major Earthquake every year this is not a great problem either. Especially as war increases the risk of famine.That leaves us with the tribulation which takes a relatively short time. So there is no problemOf your remaining items :
7) is more of a problem for you than for me. It is no problem for me if Jesus underestimated the time required - and the fact that there were Christians in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome itself within 20 years of his death indicates that a rapid spread among the lands Jesus would have known of is entirely possible.11) is not in this prophecy. You can't include it.12) This is your reading - and it contradicts any claim that the described events could take more than one generation. Even in your interpretation only the start date is open to argument - the events themselves must fit into a timespan of decades, not centuries.13) And here you quite blatantly contradict your own point 12 by trying to make the Tribulation last for the best part of 2000 years. Even if you use the Bar Kochba revolt as the start date of the exile you have more than 1800 years from the exile to the date you use for the "return". Lukes reference to the siege of Jerusalem preceding the Exile corresponds to the start of the Tribulation in the other versions - so it is certainly included within your "generation". Therefore the exile cannot last more than a generation. Where then do you have the START of your exile ? Remembering that the Tribulation must start before the exile ? It seems that the only point that could be problematic for my position is your assertion that 1947 MUST be seen as the fulfilment of the return mentioned by Luke. However that is the point in question, is it not ? If the prophecy does not work you cannot expect me to accept that you are right anyway and agree that the Bible must be distorted to fit what you want to be true.14) The fig tree - and all the other trees - are an image used for teaching. This is not a literal event.In summary, none of your valid points indicates a timespan greater than decades. Point 12 clearly does indicate that the whole process from start to finish cannot take more than decades. This contradicts your point 13. I also point out that your points 11 and 14 are completely bogus.As to the rest, your claim that Jesus is speaking to future generations of Christians has no support in the text. Your interpretation that it CANNOT refer to the disciples at all has absolutely no support in the text and is contradicted by the fact that it is directly addressed TO them.3) I notice that my point 3 remains unaddressed, despite the fact that you need to show that the destruction of the Temple not only happens early but BEFORE the start of your "generation". This is one of the major pieces of evidence that the prophecy has failed and you need to be able to answer it.And my "witness" point is valid. If something appears only in a single version of the story then you only have the word of one man that it happened. Your "point" is an irrelevant statement attempting to deny that obvious truth.[URL for "Year of Four Emperors" added in edit][second edit starts here]
I suggest that there are two major points you need to deal with to stand any chance at all.Firstly you need to deal with where the destruction of the Temple fits into the prophecy. Secondly you need to deal with the issue of the generation of Mark 13:30. I'll put up a post on the first as a reply to this.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-15-2004][This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-15-2004]

Well you should be looking into geography and politics to answer these questions.I would have to say that so fat as I can tell, right now, the only possible reason for assuming that Babylon is likely to have any significance as a seat of rule is the assumption that Revelation is both accurate prophecy and refers to the literal Babylon. But that begs the question.Can you give any real reasons for thinking that there will be a kingdom with Babylon as it's capital in the forseeable future other than those assumptions ?

Both Mark and Luke have Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple (or rather the Herodian additions). The Disciples question him on the signs that will show that the destruction is imminent and the Discourse is Jesus' answer.
Matthew 24:3 puts the question differently, which is technically a contradiction but it is only significant if it changes the interpretation of the prophecy. Since my interpretation is compatible with both versions it does not propose a significant contradiction between the Gospels. Any interpretation that requires Matthew's version rather than that provided by Mark and Luke not only asserts that there is a contradiction, it also goes against the majority of the accounts.So where does the destruction of the Temple fit ? There is no explicit reference in the prophecy. It might be argued that Luke has an implicit reference but this requires the assumption that Luke does indeed refer to the siege of 70 AD - which is fine if we're assuming that Luke added it after the fact, but if we assume that that section is a prediction then reading actual events into it would beg the question of whether this is a successful prophecy.So since the disciples asked Jesus for signs preceding the destruction of the Temple, we must assume that the signs given are indeed signs of the destruction of the Temple, which must therefore follow the events given. Certainly we must include the "Abomination of desolation" (and as I have argued this event itself is linked to the continued existence of the Temple). But surely the sun darkening (Mark 13:24), the falling stars (Mark 13:25) and the appearance of the "Son of Man coming in clouds wth great power..." (Mark 13:26) also qualify.All these things therefore must come before the destruction of the Temple. The time for this prophecy, then, came to an end in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.

Well lets go over your points1) "Diverse" means different - it doesn't have to be *that* many.2) Your false accusation of spin is noted. However you proved no factual argument you just assert that Jesus must have meant the whole world. In fact knowing about the New World WOULD have required supernatural knowledge so assuming that would beg the question. Equally given the historic spread of Christianity a spread to the known world of the time would not have been out of the question within a timescale of decades. Even then it is equally possible that Jesus could have underestimated the time. You can't just dismiss all these and then use your questionable interptation to sweep aside all the contrary evidence.3) A "gathering of the elect" is mentioned. People disappearing "from the Earth suddenly for no explicable reason" is not. It does not say where nor who the elect will be gathered.4) There is no support from the text that your assertion that the budding of the fig tree refers to a literal event. It is described as a "parable" (Mark 13:28, Luke 21:29, Matthew 24:32). And the meaning is clearly stated - when the signs appear the return of Jesus is close at hand. The fig tree is not even placed in the list of events - it is placed after that.5) As I have pointed out Luke's reference to the siege of Jerusalem (21:20) parallels the start of the Tribulation in the other Gospels (compare Luke 21:21-23 with Mark 13:14-19). And the captivity follows that (Luke 21:24). Luke follows that with the return of Jesus.
All you can do is to insist that the Tribulation has to occur in the future - but you offer nothing from the prophecy we are discussing.6) I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I'm pointing out that the Olviet Discourse is NOT a good match for the historical events. And then YOU try to sweep that under the rug. That's exactly what your point 5 does. You don't deal with the evidence I've produced, you just call the conclusion "nonsense" because it contradicts your beliefs. If you think that the Bible MUST agree with your personal beliefs no matter what it actually says then openly declare it. If you don't then stop assuming that the Bible agrees with you and start reading it.As for your final point, I guess that you consider points like the historical facts and the actual text of the Bible to weak to contradict your opinions. But the fact is that your evience is being rejected for good reasons- which you can't rebut - while in this thread you are rejecting the evidence because you don't like the conclusions it points to. Those are the facts. Your points 2 and 5 alone show you rejecting evidence without good reason.So what really seems to be happening is that you reject my arguments for no good reason. And you reject my rebuttals to your arguments for no good reason.

Just to once and for all deal with any accusations that I am sweeping things under the rug, I'm going to take a more detailed look at Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse.I have already pointed out the following facts :1) The most likely date for the writing of Luke - as well as some less likely ones that are still seriously proposed - is AFTER 70 AD when the "exile" began (there was no formal exile at that point, but enough Jews left that it is usually taken as the start of the Exile even now).2) The exile and return is NOT found in Mark or Matthew - nor is the siege of Jerusalem. This is not a minor detail - it is a major event that we would not expect either Mark or Matthew to omit. Accordingly we already have good grounds to suspect that this part is an addition.3) Even most fundamentalists do not beleive that Luke was a disciple. The traditional author is the Gentile physician Luke, mentioned by Paul. There is no evidence that Luke was present at the Olivet discourse and even tradition disagrees.A deeper look only adds to the evidence that this is an addition.Remember we are dealing with a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple. As I have already pointed out Mark and Matthew's signs include the "Abomination" and the "Tribulation".Now a Christian living shortly after 70 AD would know:1) That the Temple had been destroyed2) That that had been immediately preceded by a long siege of Jerusalem (in Luke but not Mark or Matthew).3) That there had NOT been an "Abomination that causes desolation" (in Mark and Matthew but not Luke)4) That the Sun had not been darkened, nor had the stars fallen from heaven - nor had there been "affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation" as Mark puts it (Mark and Matthew but not Luke)5) That many Jews had fled into exile (Luke, not Matthew or Mark).And of course a Christian of that time would still believe that Jesus was returning soon.The case that Luke - or his source has - removed elements of the prophecy that had failed to happen and added references to events that had happened instead cannot be lightly dismissed. Of course Jesus still did not return, so Lukes prophecy also failed. The signs - the siege and the exile happened and so ahd the desturction of the Temple but anybody following the parable of the fig tree and concluding that Jesus' return was near would have been very wrong.So what of the return ? Well as we know it did not happen in the timescale allowed by Luke. And we have good reason to think that it comes from Luke - or his sources -not Jesus. Moreover given that the genuine Messianic prophecies have a Jewish kingdom centred on Jerusalem (not to mention that there were prophecies of return from exile - even if they referred to the Babylonian exile) - there is no need to assume a genuine prophecy. There were obvious reasons for Luke to expect a return.To sum up the evidence supports the view that the prophecy had been significantly altered to match what was known at the likely time of writing. The return from exile was added as part of these changes. It is likely that a Christian would expect a return as a corollary of the exile itself which had already begun. Finally both the return from exile and Jesus own return were predicted to come soon after the esiege of Jerusalem and the exile - yet the exile lasted more than 1800 years and Jesus' return has still not appeared. So the prophecy appears to be both a fake and a failure.

Lets start with your end point. Exactly WHICH "historical fact" is it that I supposedly reject ? You've never actually explicitly said. So I definitely want to know that.On to your other points.1) I reiterate my reply on the meaning of diverse. It doesn't need to be that many, and a few decades provides sufficient time. And if it did not then the prophecy would be impossible anyway, so your argument is self-defeating2) Firstly any claim to divinity on the part of Jesus is exactly the sort of thing the claim of prophecy is supposed to support. It is begging the question to assume that Jesus had any special knowledge.And since I have already pointed out that the Gospel was not preached to "all nations" in the timescale allowed by the prophecy that element is a failure.3) I did indeed read the verse, which is how I knew that it contained no reference to people disappearing. (I assume that you forgot to consider that the elect would include people already dead).4) You are the one who tried to claim that the prophecy of the fig tree referred to a literal event. And you are still trying to link it to a literal event despite the fact that there is nothing there to support such a reading.5) You are simply ignoring the point that Luke puts verses that are part of the Tribulation as starting with the siege of Jerusalem. And you accuse me of spin ! Read the Bible instead of relying on your preconceptions of what it must mean.6) I'm not doing a "spin and sweep job" - that's your style. I'm the one that provides all the evidence - you just try and force it into your preconceptions, ignorign the facts that don't fit. Please stop using this dishonest tactic of making false accusations instead of discussing the facts. My arguments are not "KO'd" - they have yet to even be seriously addressed. Your position is on the ropes.If you REALLY want to claim victory then you can start by addressing my post on where the destruction of the Temple fits into the Prophecy. Post 143

I don't have time to say much and Percy has adequately addressed your claims on the dating of Luke.I will answer your point 1.It is a fact that some Christians HAVE claimed that prophecioes referring to the return from ther Babylonian Exile WERE fulfilled by the modern return of the Jews to Israel. I am only suggesting that it is possible that Christians in the past thought in a similar way and that that is another possible reason why Luke would add a return from exile.
There is nothing clearly unreasonable in that, despite your scorn.And your point 2
The destruction of the Temple is one of the main focuses of the whole prophecy as you well know. That happened in 70 AD. If it did not "fulfill the prophecy" then you are saying that the prophecy has failed. Unless you want to say that the same buildings can be destroyed twice !

I've already put good reasons against the Temple being anywhere near the beginning of the prophecy.Your argument that the time span must have been greater is far from the "logical" certainty you would have us beleif. Consider for instance the famines - under your interpetation that means we must wait for the normally occurring famines to reach some unknown large total. But it is possible to have famines in "diverse" places in a single year. Is it possible for the Jews to be dispersed and regather in a few decades ? I would say so - and it is clear that the author of Luke who is the most likely source of this statement believed it. Hopw long did the Babylonian Exile last ?But even if your arguments were good it would hardly help your position. If you want to argue that the prophecy as written just couldn't happen then that is no reason to pretend that it doesn't mean what it says - which is what you would have us do. All it does is add to the evidence that it is a failure - as well as providing evidence that Jesus made grandiose and false claims.But still there are other more important issues to deal with, as I have stated. That you prefer to waste time losing an argument that could only hurt your position is itself a clear sign of how weak your position really is.

And don't forget the Tribulation starting in 70 AD...But I think that there is one thing that clearly shows the problems with this prophecy:The destruction of the Temple is one of the major points of the prophecy. It actually happened. Even mainstream scholars usually put Mark before that destruction. Yet it isn't put forward as a success - and it seems that Buzsaw simply wants to assume that it must happen near the beginnng - he offers no justification from the text and doesn't seem inclined to discuss it.The reason why is plain to see. The prophecy failed. If the early part of the prophecy is taken as referring to a long time as Buzsaw insists then the Temple was destroyed way too early. If it is taken as a short time then the Tribulation and second coming should be long past.

I'm afraid that you actually need to read the prophecy. It starts with the disciples talking about specific buildings - identified as the Herodian extensions to the Temple - and those are the buildings to be destroyed.Mark 13 (NASB)
1 As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."There really is no doubt that the buildings in question are in Jerusalem, near the Temple.I'm not entirely certain exactly why the Vatican is in Rome but I suspect that the relationship with the Roman state was a major factor. The "official" reason is that Peter was first Bishop of Rome (which is not certain, but may well be true), and that Peter's leadership of the disciples was passed on to his successors in that see.I suggest that this issue should be discussed in a different thread, if you are interested.

You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that the buildings under discussion were in Jerusalem, not Rome or anywhere else. It is not a general reference to "magnificent buildings" - it is a mention of specific buildings, in Jerusalem that the disciples saw while leaving the Temple.Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?

Dating is not an issue here. While the conversation could have been a few years earlier or later than 30 AD there's really not much room for any more variation wihtout assuming inaccuracies in the Gospel accounts.And I have no idea where you got the idea that I said that the disciples didn't know about Rome. And as yet we have seen no evidence that Jesus knew anything that "normal" people did not.I;ve given you the verse references and the translation I was using (Mark 13:1-2, NASB) already. Why would you need a link ?Let me add that the Vatican is NOT the foundation of Christianity (neither the Protestants nor the Eastern Churches give it such a special status) and when the prophecy was spoken Jerusalem was very much the present - NOT the past.It seems, like Buzsaw, you are trying to deny that the prophecy has failed by denying what it says and inventing your own "prophecy".

This is just daft.Yes I discounted your idea that the buildings referred to could be in Rome on the grounds that the disciples could see the buildings in Jerusalem and are therefore likely to remark on their magnificence while they could not see the Colosseum or even know that it would be built. That in no way implies that the disciples did not know of Rome.I see that your idea that the Vatican is the "foundation of Christianity" is simply your personal belief that is rejected by many Christians and seems to have no relevance anyway.The Vatican is NOT a viable option for the prophecy for reasons I've already given. If you actually cared to read and understand the prophecy you wouldn't have made such a silly suggestion in the first place.

The list of events is given in:Mark 13:6-27 (Jesus' speech starts in 13:5)Matthew 24:5-31 (Jesus' speech starts in 24:4)Luke 21:8-27Please choose the verses that you believe refer to the destruction of the Temple and justify your choices.