... And they came on in wrath and mighty anger of soul; and the Lord surrendered it into their hands, and they fulfilled all in accordance with His will. And who can depict what took place within Jerusalem and in her streets? Who number the multitude of dead who lay stretched in Jerusalem ? . . .

For this reason we have told this, namely that you may know what men lived in our country ; and how many villainies they committed, in the way of slaughter and desolation and extermination of your brethren.

Anyone who ran away in terror they caught hold of ; and if any cried out from fear, they roared at them with gnashing of teeth, and by breaking their teeth forced them to close their mouths. They slaughtered tender infants on the ground, and then with loud yelps called their parents. Their parents bewailed20 the children with vociferations and sobbings, but were promptly despatched along with them. Any that were caught armed were massacred with their own weapons. Those who ran swiftly were pierced with arrows, the unresisting and quiet they slew without mercy. They listened not to appeals of supplicants, nor pitied youthful beauty, nor had compassion on old men's age, nor blushed before the humility of the clergy. On the contrary they destroyed persons of every age, massacred them like animals, cut them in pieces, mowed sundry of them down like cabbages, so that all alike had severally to drain the cup full of bitterness. Lamentation and terror might be seen in Jerusalem. Holy churches were burned with fire, others were demolished, majestic altars fell prone, sacred crosses were trampled underfoot, life-giving icons were spat upon by the unclean. Then their wrath fell upon priests and deacons: they slew them in their churches like dumb animals. . . .

Antiochus Strategos, The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/an...os_capture.htm

Count Raymond and his men, who were attacking the wall on the other side, did not yet know of all this, until they saw the Saracens leap from the wall in front of them. Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

The Capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, 1099

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulk2.html

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm

We, therefore, in our exultation, returned confidently into the Holy City, thinking to dwell there safely, and many from feelings of devotion, and others in hope of obtaining and retaining possession of their inheritances, rashly and incautiously returned, either into the city itself or into the suburbs; we, however, endeavored to dissuade them from this altogether, fearing treachery from these perfidious people, and so went away from them. Not long after our departure, these perfidious Choermians came in great force and surrounded the Christians in the Holy City, making violent assaults on them daily, cutting off all means of ingress and egress to and from the city, and harassing them in various ways, so that, owing to these attacks, hunger and grief, they fell into despair, and all by common consent exposed themselves to the chances and risk of death by the hands of the enemy. They therefore left the city by night, and wandered about in the trackless and desert parts of the mountains till they at length came to a narrow pass, and there they fell into an ambuscade of the enemy, who, surrounding them on all sides, attacked them with swords, arrows, stones and other weapons, slew and cut to pieces, according to a correct computation, about seven thousand men and women, and caused such a massacre that the blood of those of the faith, with sorrow I say it, ran down the sides of the mountain like water. Young men and virgins they hurried off with them into captivity, and retired into the Holy City, where they cut the throats, as of sheep doomed to the slaughter, of the nuns, and aged and infirm men, who, unable to endure the toils of the journey and fight, had fled to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and to Calvary, a place consecrated by the blood of our Lord, thus perpetrating in His holy sanctuary such a crime as the eyes of men had never seen since the commencement of the world.

The Capture of Jerusalem, 1244

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1144falljlem.html

(The Dome of the Rock, completed in 691, is referred to as the Temple of Solomon)

Yep

I am a orthodox partial preterist postmillenialist, but I have been wondering. How would we ever come to this conclusion with the bible alone, without an historical document?

Originally posted by theonomist

I am a orthodox partial preterist postmillenialist, but I have been wondering. How would we ever come to this conclusion with the bible alone, without an historical document?

My question is, can it be supported with history? I don't believe it can be. The purpose of my quotes is to show that there are many destructions of Jerusalem throughout history, and there is no objective way to say that one is worse than the others. We are simply relying on the testimony of men who are not considered infallible. So there is no way we can say with certainty that it is the worst time since the beginning of the world. We can't quantify the claims in a meaningful way. So if the proof of preterism rests on Josephus, I say it is no proof at all.

Originally posted by eschaton

My question is, can it be supported with history? I don't believe it can be. The purpose of my quotes is to show that there are many destructions of Jerusalem throughout history, and there is no objective way to say that one is worse than the others. We are simply relying on the testimony of men who are not considered infallible. So there is no way we can say with certainty that it is the worst time since the beginning of the world. We can't quantify the claims in a meaningful way. So if the proof of preterism rests on Josephus, I say it is no proof at all.

Well, if that was all we had, I would say you are right.

But it is not. We have the time text (this generation shall not pass), we have the "worst ever" in response to question prompted by Jesus saying the temple would be destroyed ( and only one destruction had the temple He was then talking about destroyed). So even without Josephus we should accept that if Jesus said the destruction would be the worst ever, then it was. If Jesus said it would happen within that generation, then it did. If He said that the temple was going to be destroyed, it was. Only one event in history meets that criteria. The fact that Jesus said it is criteria enough for me. Even if I have no idea by what critieria He claimed the worst ever^*. No need at all for Josephus.










^* I do have an idea as to what criteria Jesus used, but it is not necessary for preterism to be true so I left it unsaid.

Originally posted by Faramir

Well, if that was all we had, I would say you are right.

But it is not. We have the time text (this generation shall not pass), we have the "worst ever" in response to question prompted by Jesus saying the temple would be destroyed ( and only one destruction had the temple He was then talking about destroyed). So even without Josephus we should accept that if Jesus said the destruction would be the worst ever, then it was. If Jesus said it would happen within that generation, then it did. If He said that the temple was going to be destroyed, it was. Only one event in history meets that criteria. The fact that Jesus said it is criteria enough for me. Even if I have no idea by what critieria He claimed the worst ever No need at all for Josephus.
I do have an idea as to what criteria Jesus used, but it is not necessary for preterism to be true so I left it unsaid.

You're welcome to your opinion Faramir, but you have to realize that the ECF didn't look at "this generation" as preterists do today. Neither has it been seen as limiting the events of the Olivet discourse to the first century until faily recently. Haven't we discussed that before?

Originally posted by eschaton

You're welcome to your opinion Faramir, but you have to realize that the ECF didn't look at "this generation" as preterists do today. Neither has it been seen as limiting the events of the Olivet discourse to the first century until faily recently. Haven't we discussed that before?

Yes. But I was addressing your statement regarding the preterist use of Josephus. And I was pointing out that ONLY AD 70 (of the ones you listed) could fit the bill, regardless of Josephus (even if you take out "this generation" as ONLY AD 70 had a temple destroyed. So the only two option of the temple mentioned in the Olivet Discourse being destroyed are AD 70 or something still future with a future temple (if you ignore the dozen or so indicators that it was a first century event). Your "point" about why the AD 70 destruction was significantly different than other destructions was addressed. Your implication that preterist rely too heavily on Josephus was refuted.

I have decided to leave discussion on the ECF to people who are more knowledgable about those tings, if that is the direction you want to take this thread, I will just lurk.

Okay.

1. Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple and maybe Jerusalem.
2. The destruction in 70 AD comes closest to what Jesus was talking about.
3. Being close counts in hand grenades and Bible interpretation.

Forgive me for being a little cute here. Let me explain why I don't buy into this line of thought.

1. I think a literal prophecy of destroying buildings is contrary to the way Jesus taught.
2. I don't think the historical events of 70 AD match very closely to what Jesus said even if we take it literally.
3. I don't think we should interpret the Bible like throwing hand grenades. Either it matches exactly or it doesn't match at all.

When I ask for an exact match the method of interpretation has to be taken into account. An exact match in a literal sense is something different than an exact match in a spiritual sense. I think Jesus taught about spiritual matters.

Originally posted by eschaton

Okay.

1. Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple and maybe Jerusalem.
2. The destruction in 70 AD comes closest to what Jesus was talking about.
3. Being close counts in hand grenades and Bible interpretation.

Forgive me for being a little cute here. Let me explain why I don't buy into this line of thought.

1. I think a literal prophecy of destroying buildings is contrary to the way Jesus taught.
2. I don't think the historical events of 70 AD match very closely to what Jesus said even if we take it literally.
3. I don't think we should interpret the Bible like throwing hand grenades. Either it matches exactly or it doesn't match at all.

When I ask for an exact match the method of interpretation has to be taken into account. An exact match in a literal sense is something different than an exact match in a spiritual sense. I think Jesus taught about spiritual matters.

Well excuse me for not going on, but I am not sure you addressed my point. Do you concede that the destruction in AD 70 was a unique event among those you listed as it involved the destruction of the temple?

That is the reason I came on this thread, not to get into another debate on interpretive method.

Originally posted by Faramir

Well excuse me for not going on, but I am not sure you addressed my point. Do you concede that the destruction in AD 70 was a unique event among those you listed as it involved the destruction of the temple?

That is the reason I came on this thread, not to get into another debate on interpretive method.

It is unique compared to the other three incidents that I gave quotes from. But it is not unique in history. The temple had been destroyed before, as you know.

So you're saying that 70AD has to be what Jesus was talking about because the temple was destroyed.

There's two reasons I don't agree with that view, but I think you already understand why.

Originally posted by eschaton

It is unique compared to the other three incidents that I gave quotes from. But it is not unique in history. The temple had been destroyed before, as you know.

So you're saying that 70AD has to be what Jesus was talking about because the temple was destroyed.

There's two reasons I don't agree with that view, but I think you already understand why.

Yes. 70AD is the only destruction of Jerusalem that had the temple that Jesus was talking about in the discourse destroyed. (i.e. "you see these buildings"). Not even prior sacks of Jerusalem had that particular temple destroyed.

Originally posted by Faramir

Yes. 70AD is the only destruction of Jerusalem that had the temple that Jesus was talking about in the discourse destroyed. (i.e. "you see these buildings"). Not even prior sacks of Jerusalem had that particular temple destroyed.

I have to say I don't agree with your statement, and I'm not the only one who has disagreed with your statement.

I look at it this way. The chief false accusation against Jesus was that He declared He would destroy the temple. John made it clear that it was a false accusation.

Originally posted by eschaton

I have to say I don't agree with your statement, and I'm not the only one who has disagreed with your statement.

I look at it this way. The chief false accusation against Jesus was that He declared He would destroy the temple. John made it clear that it was a false accusation.

But:

1. Jesus did say that "these buildings" would not be left one stone upon another.
2. That did happened in AD 70.
3. That was within a generation of the Olivet Discourse.

Originally posted by Faramir

But:

1. Jesus did say that "these buildings" would not be left one stone upon another.
2. That did happened in AD 70.
3. That was within a generation of the Olivet Discourse.

I think you are ignoring the facts.

1.Jesus called the apostles stones and buildings. The NT refers to the church as the true temple and Jerusalem. This is consistent with what the church fathers taught. When Jesus said "these buildings" it should be obvious that He spoke of spiritual matters.
2.Jesus said that not one stone would be left upon another in the entirety of Jerusalem. That didn't happen in 70AD.
3.You totally ignore the context of "generation." Don't look at it the same way Nicodemus did re-entering the womb.

If the apostles fully understood Jesus before He was resurrected, then they would have underestood what He was saying about the temple, but they didn't.

Let me ask you this. What was the accusation made against Stephen that caused him to be stoned? What was he teaching that so infuriated those of the synagogue?

think you are ignoring the facts.

Excuse me for butting in but there are some real bad facts in the next part I just had to address:

1.Jesus called the apostles stones and buildings.

Paul is the one that says this: 1 Cor. 3:9-11, Eph. 2:20 & 4:11-13

Unless you are talking about Rev. 21.14, then this is symbolically the apostle are a foundation.

The NT refers to the church as the true temple and Jerusalem. This is consistent with what the church fathers taught. When Jesus said "these buildings" it should be obvious that He spoke of spiritual matters.

Just because the fathers got some of it right most of the time doesn't mean they got it right all the time. It is not obvious that Jesus was speaking in a spiritual matter but rather in a symbolic and allegorical, the literary frame work in which he was speaking was a Jewish apocalyptic, so I see your ECF and raise you second temple writings.

2.Jesus said that not one stone would be left upon another in the entirety of Jerusalem. That didn't happen in 70AD.

Because the passages in Matthew is talking about the temple and its buildings, and his did happen verified in history and archeology. Luke's is more generic, not nailing down what would be torn down, but since, like Matthew, the question was about the temple and the temple buildings we can see it was.

3.You totally ignore the context of "generation." Don't look at it the same way Nicodemus did re-entering the womb.

The context “This generation” has been well established, by looking at the surrounding teaching in Matthew 23 (which is connected to chapter 24) the “generation” is clearly the one to whom Jesus is speaking.

Originally posted by studyhound

Excuse me for butting in but there are some real bad facts in the next part I just had to address:

No by all means, but in. You said what I would have (plus the part about the second temple writings that I am woefully ignorant of. Keep up the good work).