The Olivet Discourse--Broken Prophecy?

[sylvius]

What's at stake?

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/w....html#deut1817

So What's at Stake?

There is nothing less at stake here than the veracity of Christ. Our faith would be wrong if Christ's admonitory statements turned out to be useless or wrong. Christ would have turned out to be a false prophet. If these astounding predictions, made with bold assertions as to timing, did actually take place, our faith is strengthened. In fact, it is my position that this is more than a mere exercise in prophecy—Christ was not merely foretelling the future, He was teaching about His vindication and absolute right to His astounding claims. He WAS exactly who He said He was, and He was going to prove it and exact the penalty on those who would reject the King of Glory—in the same way that the OT described YHWH as doing.

We must remember well this admonition:

Deuteronomy 18:17–22: And the Lord said to me: "What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." And if you say in your heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?"— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

It is fascinating that the very same passage which warns against false prophets is the one that prophesies of the coming of the Ultimate Prophet who also shall be vindicated by the accuracy of His Words.

Strange of course, since Greek "stauros", mostly translated as cross (after Latin "crux"), means stake.
"Crucify him"= Put him on a stake.

So the preterists "need" Jesus to have foretold the destruction of the Temple.
The Temple being destroyed is an historical fact.

They might ask how ever Paul could have been so sure about Jesus being Christ, since he wrote his letters way before the year 70.
He even doesn't know about Jesus having foretold the destruction (at least he never mentions it), as he also doesn't know nothing of a virgin birth or of an empty grave.

[technomage]

What's at stake?

Seemingly, your continued feeble attempt at a vendetta against Dee Dee.

Please take your arguments to your own thread. You are not addressing, or even attempting to address, the topics I have brought up here.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am back for a bit:

I am not looking at the totality of Roman military doctrine: I am looking solely at the Judaea campaign, where "besiege and conquer the cities that do not submit" was most certainly the order of the day.

I don’t dispute that was general Roman practice in any campaign.

However, Dee Dee, I think we have a difference of definition on "destroy." Yes, the Romans certainly did destroy the cities ... but in this campaign, "destroy" meant "penetrate the walls, kill the resisters, and re-establish Roman rule." It did not mean "Raze the city to the foundations," which seems to be what you are arguing they did to Jerusalem.

Wait a second there you wascally wiccan. I don’t dispute your right to define the terms you are using, or to say how you intend to use them, but earlier in the thread this conversation took place:

how did Mark know how it would end? With the level of destruction that was accomplished. It is well documented that the Romans didn't intend to level the place.

and

It is well documented that the Romans didn't intend to level the place.

In response you said:

I'd have to see the documentation on that. There were several cities in Galilee that the Romans took without resistance--they left those cities alone. But if a city resisted, they destroyed that city. That was their standard practice ... and they had quite a lot of practice.

You appear to have evolved your opinion in the course of this thread. Your later statement is in conflict with your earlier one---or more precisely it appears to. I am not alleging anything sinister.

I don’t dispute that Romans had the policy of "besiege and conquer the cities that do not submit.” Neither do you. I don’t dispute that in this campaign, "destroy" meant "penetrate the walls, kill the resisters, and re-establish Roman rule." Neither do you.

So it seems we just spent several posts proving a circle is circular. My point again was:

If it was upcoming when it was written, how did Mark know how it would end? With the level of destruction that was accomplished.

Do you dispute that the level of destruction went beyond the typical? Jesus did a whole lot more than just predict the destruction of the Temple

Scripture Verse:

Luke 19:41–44: Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

but even IF He just predicted the destruction of the Temple, that was not the intent of the Jewish campaign, which would make His prophecy remarkable indeed.

I was again quote Wikipedia, which again though not the most scholarly of source, is usually pretty good at getting things right that are, quite simply, uncontroversial in the respective field.

Destroying the Temple was not among Titus' goals, possibly due in large part to the massive expansions done by Herod the Great mere decades earlier. Titus had wanted to seize it and transform it into a temple dedicated to the Roman Emperor and the Roman pantheon. The fire spread quickly and was soon out of control. The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B'Av, in the beginning of August, and the flames spread into the residential sections of the city. ... The account of Josephus described Titus as moderate in his approach and, after conferring with others, ordering that the thousand-year-old (at that time) Temple be spared. (Solomon's Temple dated to the 10th century BC, though the physical structure was Herod's Temple, about 90 years old at the time.) According to Josephus, the Roman soldiers grew furious with Jewish attacks and tactics and, against Titus' orders, set fire to an apartment adjacent to the Temple, which soon spread all throughout. However, Josephus may have written this in order to appease his coreligionists.

I also have these quotes from George Holford's classic work, The Destruction of Jerusalem as Absolute Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity (a popular level work of the 1800s with a long title typical of that day):

In executing the command of Titus, relative to the demolition of Jerusalem, the Roman soldiers not only threw down the buildings, but even dug up their foundations, and so completely levelled the whole circuit of the city, that a stranger would scarcely have known that it had ever been inhabited by human beings. Thus was this great City, which only five months before, had been crowded with nearly two millions of people, who gloried in its impregnable strength, entirely depopulated, and levelled with the ground. And thus, also was our LORD'S prediction, that her enemies should "lay her even with the ground," and "should not leave in her one stone upon another, " (Luke xix. 44.) most strikingly and fully accomplished ! -- This fact is confirmed by Eusebius, who asserts that he himself saw the city lying in ruins ; and Josephus introduces Eleazer as exclaiming "Where is our great city, which, it was believed, GOD inhabited ? It is altogether rooted and torn up from its foundations ; and the only monument of it that remains, is the camp of its destroyers pitched amidst its reliques !"…

Concerning the Temple, our LORD had foretold, particularly, that, notwithstanding their wonderful dimensions, there should "not be left one stone upon another that should not be thrown down ;" and, accordingly, it is recorded, in the Talmud, and by Maimonides, that Terentius Rufus, captain of the army of Titus, absolutely ploughed up the foundations of the Temple with a ploughshare.

I could go on to develop my point (which again in this thread) is very limited, but I feel like I am not getting a really clear answer in this one point.

And thank you so much for what you said to Sylvius. As is apparent by his hasty retreat afterwards, he was simply you and your thread as a reason to continue his following of me. He has stopped that, and I think I have a lot of thanks to you on that count. It took someone else other than me (and other than having to resort to using the forum moderators to do so) to tell him, so thank you. Be kind to the goat for me tonight.

[technomage]

You appear to have evolved your opinion in the course of this thread.

Not so much "evolved" as using a word "destroy" that is multi-valent and unclear. For clarity's sake, let's use the following distinction:
* Captured: The city surrenders. There may be some plunder or a few killings or crucifixions, but the city is left largely intact.
* Subdued: The city resists, the walls are breached, the resisters killed, and Roman rule restored. The city remains largely intact.
* Destroyed: After being subdued, major damages are imposed upon the city as a form of punitive action, but the city is still inhabitable.
* Razed: The Romans completely destroy the city, and every (or almost every) building therein. (If they want to get really nasty, they may even sow the ground with salt.)

When the Romans came through in 70 ce, they destroyed the city--demolishing the city walls was a punitive action, as it was not militarily necessary (they had already conquered the city by that point). When they came back in 135, they razed the city.

Heck, even though the Temple itself was set on fire (and not even directly--the Roman soldiers set fire to apartments adjacent to the temple, and the fire spread), there was still considerable stonework standing after the destruction--those portions survived the razing of the city by Hadrian in 135, and were still largely intact until the building of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah (the Dome of the Rock, a smaller shrine).

Now, the city walls (save for those portions that the Romans would use for their garrison) were razed to the foundations. The Temple was (according to Josephus) ordered to be destroyed, but evidently (because of the portions that survived until the 6th Century) the Romans didn't complete that part of the job.

Do you dispute that the level of destruction went beyond the typical?

No, this was fairly typical. I compare the destruction of Jerusalem to Caesar's campaign at Gaul, the conquest of Britain, (in this campaign) the conquest of Masada, or the Bar Kochba revolt. Those towns and cities that surrendered were largely spared: the ones that resisted were penetrated, captured, and Roman rule installed. THe capitols, or symbolic fortresses, were deliberately destroyed or razed.

Destroying a city was reserved for capitols of the resisting forces, or for especially effective campaigns against the Romans. In the 70 ce campaign, resistance was fairly mixed up until the Romans reached Jerusalem--some cities resisted fiercely and were subdued, not many were destroyed (mainly because the Romans didn't want to be tied up taking down one city's walls when the next city down the rod was still in unfriendly hands). Jerusalem was not the only victim of this punitive destruction--Masada received much the same treatment, yet you see how much of the fortress is still intact.

Razing a city was a symbolic act more than a military act: if the Romans razed a city, they didn't mean for the inhabitants to EVER recover. In the bar Kochba revolt, as you may remember, the nascent indepedent nation of Israel wiped out an entire Roman legion with auxiliaries. The Romans came through like the proverbial dose of salt.

Jesus did a whole lot more than just predict the destruction of the Temple

Scripture Verse:

Luke 19:41–44: Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

But that's the thing, Dee Dee--the Romans didn't "level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another." Now, I doubt Luke saw the condition of the city after the 70 ce campaign, but we both know the power of rumor: if it was reported to Luke that the Romans did not "leave in you one stone upon another," no doubt that is what he reported in turn.

but even IF He just predicted the destruction of the Temple, that was not the intent of the Jewish campaign, which would make His prophecy remarkable indeed.

Here we reach an impasse, I fear, as my response would normally be to list the reasons that I do not think Jesus ever made this prediction--a line of discussion that you have no interest in participating in. I respect your reasons, and I respect your choice to not be involved in such a discussion ... but it does foreclose that part of the conversation.

I also have these quotes from George Holford's classic work, The Destruction of Jerusalem as Absolute Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity (a popular level work of the 1800s with a long title typical of that day):

...In executing the command of Titus, relative to the demolition of Jerusalem, the Roman soldiers not only threw down the buildings, but even dug up their foundations, and so completely levelled the whole circuit of the city, that a stranger would scarcely have known that it had ever been inhabited by human beings....

Dee Dee, notice that phrase: "circuit of the city." In this passage, Holford is speaking of the walls of the city, not of the buildings inside, nor of the Temple. Indeed, if you read the passage from Josephus and compare it to the passage from Holford, you will note that Holford grossly exaggerates the Josephus account. Exaggeration and hyperbole may have their place in apologetics, but they do not have a place in historical analysis.

If Holford had been accurate, there would have been no returning population to Jerusalem in 70 ce--and there was. Many of the more important houses were spared and survived until bar Kochba's revolt, as did the towers and the fortresses (the towers to show how mighty the city wall had been, and for their use by the Romans after the 70 ce camaign).

Be kind to the goat for me tonight.

Hah! Who's going to tell her to be kind to me? That spoiled rotten thing had a full manger of alfalfa and sweet feed, and she still ate another shirt off the line!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Techno, this once again brings up the circle. You are wanting to have it both ways. Was Luke, Mark, and Matthew written before or after AD70. How I will argue my point with you depends mightily upon that, and you seem to be wanting to be able to switch to whichever is convenient at the moment. I think you HAVE to argue they were written afterwards. Other than a presupposition that Jesus could not have been a prophet, there is no proof that these passages were inserted later (and at least in Matthew, the theme is so interspersed that Gospel would have had have a major rewrite).

If you want to argue both ways, I am going to have to ask that you provide two different answers when appropriate. One, your answer if it was written before, and one if it was written later.

Also would you argue that out of the following scenarios:

* Captured: The city surrenders. There may be some plunder or a few killings or crucifixions, but the city is left largely intact.
* Subdued: The city resists, the walls are breached, the resisters killed, and Roman rule restored. The city remains largely intact.
* Destroyed: After being subdued, major damages are imposed upon the city as a form of punitive action, but the city is still inhabitable.
* Razed: The Romans completely destroy the city, and every (or almost every) building therein. (If they want to get really nasty, they may even sow the ground with salt.)

That the the first two are the most common? Particularly if the city in questions is already in Roman territory? (i.e. not a foreign campaign)

[technomage]

Techno, this once again brings up the circle. You are wanting to have it both ways.

If I am presenting my argument to sound like I'm "wanting to have it both ways," then the fault may be with the argument, or with the presentation. I already know my presentation is flawed in other ways ... and the flawed presentation is not deliberate, it's an unfortunate side-effect of the fibro. I do thank you for bearing with me.

Was Luke, Mark, and Matthew written before or after AD70.

Mark ... I'm a little iffy on. I'm not willing to completely foreclose the possibility that it was written before 70 ce, though I strongly believe that it was. The earliest possible date for Mark is circa 65 ce (after the death of Peter).

For Matthew and Luke, I hold to a firm, post-destruction authorship (I usually give circa 80 to circa 100 as my best dating effort, though within that range I prefer an earlier date).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay thank you. That helps me in knowing from which angle to pursue. I primarily argue from Matthew (because that is the book I have studied the most, and the one I think is clearest on this issue-- I think you agree with that). My second choice is usually Luke, which I think offers sometimes a less opaque explanation. Mark tends to be so abrupt in his style that it is my least favourite on this subject.

I may disappear again for a awhile, but I do intend to return to the subject, God willing. I posted an invitation on my blog for others to participate if they wished. One of the many creepy people that are obsessed with me had a bit of a spaz over the fact I described you as a pagan rather than a Wiccan. Educate me, is that a big no-no? Isn't Wiccan just a more specific sub-set of Pagan? Plus, from my discussions with you, I have found that you don't fit exactly in the Wiccan mold but seem to bring in other general pagan traditions, which is why I described you as a pagan. Plus... this is my Christian perspective coming in, and not meaning to insult anyone, I tend to call anyone who claims a spiritual belief that is outside the Abrahamic religions or Hinduisum as pagans, because within Christianity, that is what they are, even if they would not self-identify as such. And I refer to those who profess no beliefs as heathens basically. I mean them as religious terms and not insults.

But can you let me know if I made some huge gaffe in your case by referring to you as a pagan rather than Wiccan?

[technomage]

Mark tends to be so abrupt in his style that it is my least favourite on this subject.

If you think he's bad in English, try him in Greek. There are times I wonder how the man wrote a complete sentence ... and there are times he didn't.

I may disappear again for a awhile, but I do intend to return to the subject, God willing.

Dee Dee, as I have told you before, I am grateful that you are willing to discuss this topic with me at all. The fact that you have a hectically busy schedule, the fact that you are not often comfortable discussing such topics with a non-Christian, the fact that this type of response is not your calling ... all of these are barriers that would be acceptable as a reason to demure, yet you have chosen to overcome them in as much as you can. I cannot help but honor that.

One of the many creepy people that are obsessed with me had a bit of a spaz over the fact I described you as a pagan rather than a Wiccan. Educate me, is that a big no-no? Isn't Wiccan just a more specific sub-set of Pagan?

Yes, it is ... technically I am Wiccan, but yes, that's a subset of Pagan. (And if that person gives you too much grief, send them over to talk to me on the Wiccan | Neopagan forum.)

Plus, from my discussions with you, I have found that you don't fit exactly in the Wiccan mold but seem to bring in other general pagan traditions, which is why I described you as a pagan.

You know, that's odd--for several years now, I've been practicing solitary, mainly because many Wiccans aren't comfortable with me, nor me with them. (It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm an opinionated, argumentative, and stubborn sonufagun, now could it?)

But can you let me know if I made some huge gaffe in your case by referring to you as a pagan rather than Wiccan?

Nary a bit. However, I've also noted that you tend to attract "offense kleptomaniacs"--some people, upon seeing an otherwise unattended offense, can't help but take it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I would never send this person over to talk with you over the differences. His whole purpose in posting was to show what an awful sneaky person I was trying to ambush unsuspecting Christians into a conversation with a Wiccan by luring them in with the word "pagan." As if that wouldn't let the Christian know that you weren't Christian. This guy is just a piece of work. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't committed some huge gaffe. To me it is almost like you calling me a Christian instead of a Baptist. It is using the general category rather than the particular sub-group. Normally I just ignore this chap, but since it involved you, I wanted to be I hadn't inadvertently made some big boo-boo.

[technomage]

To me it is almost like you calling me a Christian instead of a Baptist.

Hmm ... To be a closer metaphor, I would say, would be to call you a member of an Abrahamic religion, rather than Christian--but outside of that, no, there is absolutely no problem with calling me "pagan," especially from a Christian context. (Some Pagans may object if you do not capitalize the word ... but heck, if someone has to get that picky to gripe about something, then they're simply looking for something to gripe about.)

It does sound like this chap is not only a piece of work, but (as I mentioned before) an offense kleptomaniac.

[headheart]

'....solitary....'

Thinking of you.

Peace,
Eric.