John Hyperspace
UnKnown ReMember
And what book in the Bible was written after A.D. 70? The Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple would have been mentioned. It wouldn't have been excluded from the NT.
Again, there is a big difference between the recording of prophecy, and the recording of the fulfillment of that given prophecy. The old testament records prophecy of Christ; the gospels record the fulfillment of those prophecies. If the 70a.d. seige had anything to do with the prophecy in the bible (especially if the 70a.d. seige were the fulfillment of the work of Christ) then it would be recorded as fulfillment of prophecy in the same way as the gospels. But there is no book in the bible where anything such as "And then thus came Titus, to beseige Jerusalem, and thus fulfilling the prophecy" "and then was the temple burned by the legions of Rome, thus fulfilling the prophecy spoken by" etc. None of this appears in the bible. None of it is relevant to anything in the bible at all.
Also, if you're thinking the Revelation was written after 70a.d. I would simply respond, "I have no idea when any of the books of the bible were written, and neither do you: and it is all irrelevant." I would first say that, there is no scholarly consensus in this matter; I would secondly say, I wholly reject all teachings of men. You may feel free to trust men all you want, but my experience shows men that men are incompetant, and not at all to be regarded as having any form of understanding within them at all. I know how feeble, biased, and just plain bad the reasoning of men is; whether you want to tag the word "scholar" to a man or not, they are all the same in their reasoning to me: untrustworthy in the extreme.
Also, you are suggesting what? That the Revelation was written after the events therein? This is not how prophecy works.
You say "The Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple would have been mentioned" but this is an unjustified opinion: why would they be mentioned? And, furthermore, they are not mentioned. They are only "mentioned" in your mind because you are unjustifiabley interpreting prophecy to allude to them, then maintaining that your "understanding of prophecy" is correct, and therefore, these things are written in the bible.
If this is the case, there is no need of the gospels since Jesus and His ministry is already mentioned in the prophecies of the Old Testament: then why did God bother to write the gospels when clearly by your own manner of thought, the prophecy itself is all that is necessarily recorded.
Nothing that you're saying makes any sense whatsoever, and in many instances is completely backward (such as having prophecy written after the fact).
Upvote
0