What some might object to is this. If one is going to argue, me in this case, that since Luke 17:31 is also recorded Matthew 24:17-18, therefore, the former proving the latter can't be meaning 70 AD, one then shouldn't be doing the exact opposite per the following then.
Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains----
23 But woe unto them that are with child---
Compared with.
Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
And then argue per these 2 accounts, that even though they too record the same things, the same events are not meant, though. IOW, where is the consistency in these arguments? How can Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, yet not be involving the same events? While the opposite is true per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18. These too record the same events, except this time they must be involving the same events.
I get it, as to why one might object to arguing these things in this manner. Yet, Luke 17:31, if it is indeed referring to the same events recorded in Matthew 24:17-18, undeniably proves Matthew 24:17-18 can't be involving 70 AD. There is not one single thing recorded anywhere in Luke 17 that might give the impression the events involving 70 AD are meant.
What we basically end up with is this. If some of these interpreters that insist Matthew 24:15-21 is involving 70 AD, but then conclude that nothing recorded in Luke 17 is, they are doing the exact same thing they are complaining about me doing. They argue, even though Luke 17:31 records the same thing in Matthew 24:17-18, these are not referring to the same events. While I argue, even though Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, these are not referring to the same events. IOW, we are arguing in the same manner.
How then can these interpreters criticize the way I'm arguing that, when they are arguing in the exact same manner per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18 that I am? IOW, why is it ok for them to argue in that manner, but it is not ok for me to do so? Trust me, I guarantee you that there are some interpreters out there who take Matthew 24:17-18 to be involving 70 AD but do not take Luke 17:31 to be involving 70 AD. Yet, these same interpreters find fault with how I'm arguing some of Luke 21 vs some of Matthew 24. Go figure.
I've been reading and finding a a few different chapters and passages in Luke where Luke records the same things recorded in The Temple Courtyard Discourse, which according to Matthew's gospel, Jesus gave on the same day that He gave the Olivet Discourse, just a short while before He came out of the temple courtyard and headed for the Mount of Olives:
Luke 11
47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly you bear witness that you consent to the deeds of your fathers. For they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs.
49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute,
50 so that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple. Truly I say to you, It shall be required of this generation.
Matthew 23
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
Then there's also the others I mentioned in post #20 (Luke 21:12-15 cf Luke 12:11; Luke 13:34-35 cf Matthew 23:37-39) + the other things you already mentioned (and there may be yet more examples of this).
IMO, Matthew had everything in the chronological order in which they took place, but Luke did not. Although Luke did a good job overall with regard to chronology in his gospel, he simply did not know where some of Jesus' sayings and teachings fitted during the 3.5 years of His ministry. There are probably scholars who disagree with me on that, but anyway, they are not my teachers either.
