How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled

[Evergreen48]

BUMP

 

[he-man]

You are misinformed. "Matthew" is based on Mark(65-80AD), and was not finished until after the fall of Jerusalem, when it took on the form more or less that we are familiar with. Though they both mention Jesus, they represent two seperate post-aboriginal Christian movements.
Neither were written by Apostles. Apocalyptic Messianics were concerned about avenging the loss of their homeland, and the sect actively sought out visions. The Gospel of Matthew originated in Antioch, Paul's old stomping ground, and represents an evolution of Paul and James' teaching, attempting to blend works and faith into one Gospel.

The authorship of Matthew is unknown, but it was obviously a Christian Jew. The events which ir records must come from a critical study of its contents and a comparision secured by the early traditions of the post-Apostolic Age.
The events are described by the OT specific predictions as the necessary outcome of the Divinely prearranged plan.
As to the time of chap. 24 of writing (Compare Lk chap 19 & 21 which Taylor dates between 85 and 90 A.D., placing Lk between 80 and 85. (The Gospels) and is not described by the "Q" document who altered the "phraseology". Matthew reproduces the the narrative portion from Mark.
New Standard Bible Dictionary.

 

[coraline]

The authorship of Matthew is unknown, but it was obviously a Christian Jew. The events which ir records must come from a critical study of its contents and a comparision secured by the early traditions of the post-Apostolic Age.
The events are described by the OT specific predictions as the necessary outcome of the Divinely prearranged plan.
As to the time of chap. 24 of writing (Compare Lk chap 19 & 21 which Taylor dates between 85 and 90 A.D., placing Lk between 80 and 85. (The Gospels) and is not described by the "Q" document who altered the "phraseology". Matthew reproduces the the narrative portion from Mark.
New Standard Bible Dictionary.

Matthew was written before AD70 for sure.

Same for Mark & Luke.

Matthew 24, Mark13, Luke 17 &21, etc.. depicts Jesus prophesying the fall of Jerusalem in AD70- congruent with other statements of His that all things would happen in His generation.
Unless you deny what happened in history to the Jews in AD70!
If you do, then you're just subject to any subjective opinion. You don't deny readings about the church after say AD100, so why would you deny history about the Jewish?Roman war in AD67-70? Of course, bc it doesn't fit with your futuristic imagined agenda!

Therefore, tradition tries to fit their futuristic agenda in every aspect of the Text.

If it were written in AD80-90, how does that reconcile with Jesus' predictions of those things in His contemporary generation, as he said?

It doesn't!

That's why tradition is mostly eisegesi. It is based on an established traditional opinion, but falls on its face without a proper system of interpretation.

No parallel proof texts, no audience relevance, no understanding of prophetic language used, not just in the OT, but in the NT as well.

 

[he-man]

Matthew was written before AD70 for sure. Same for Mark & Luke. Matthew 24, Mark13, Luke 17 &21, etc.. depicts Jesus prophesying the fall of Jerusalem in AD70- congruent with other statements of His that all things would happen in His generation.
Unless you deny what happened in history to the Jews in AD70!

Since the author of Matthew copied something like 80% of Mark virtually word for word that would mean he wrote it later than Mark about 80 to 90 A.D. predicting the fall of Jerusalem of Today, 1943 not necessarily of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.
1Ki 9:8 And at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house?

Mic 3:12 Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet.
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

John Carroll (The Existential Jesus) says that the author of Matthew copied something like 80% of Mark virtually word for word. His reliance on Mark for the story of Jesus shows that he was not the disciple Matthew, as once supposed.

John Shelby Spong(Born of a Woman: A bishop rethinks the birth of Jesus) says that the author of Matthew, writing between 80 and early 90s CE, was a Jew familiar with midrash storytelling, but his primary language must have been Greek. There are few other clues as to the possible identity of the author of Matthew's Gospel.

However, some believe the author of this Gospel copied most of his information about the life of Jesus from Mark's Gospel. The author did not have any first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus and therefore the author could not have been the disciple called Matthew. We are back in the position where we do not know the name of the author.
The only proofs we have today are 2nd or 3rd century.

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.

In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.
The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

List of manuscripts:
GA 01 Majuscule 4th Century Codex Sinaiticus is an important majuscule manuscript from the 4th century. The images posted here are of the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, from the full-sized black and white facsimile of the manuscript produced in 1911 by Kirsopp Lake and Clarendon Press. The Codex Sinaiticus Project website has new images and information about this manuscript. British Library, London

GA 03 Majuscule 4th Century Codex Vaticanus is an important fourth century majuscule manuscript. It contains Matthew–2 Thessalonians, Hebrews 1.1–9.13, James–Jude. It lacks the Pastorals, Philemon, and Revelation. After Hebrews 9.13, the document is written in much later minuscule hand. 142 leaves on parchment, three columns, with 42 lines per column. The images are from the 1868 (pseudo-) facsimile. Vatican Library

GA 05 Majuscule 5th Century Gospels and apostolos majuscule manuscript on parchment; Greek-Latin diglot. 415 leaves, single column, 33 lines per column. Cambridge, University Library Nn. 2.41

P22 Papyrus 3rd Century Gospels manuscript on papyrus; 2 fragments, single column, approximately 47–48 lines per column. University of Glasgow, Scotland, University Library MS Gen 1026-13

P45 Papyrus 3rd Century Gospels manuscript on papyrus; 30 leaves, single column, approximately 39 lines per column. Images from F.G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri II: Plates (London, 1934). By agreement with the custodians of the manuscript, the images are not posted online; they are available for viewing at the CSNTM offices. Dublin, Chester Beatty Library and Vienna, Austrian National Library Chester Beatty I (Dublin), Pap. G. 31974 (Vienna)

P75 Papyrus 3rd Century Gospels manuscript on papyrus; 50 leaves, single column, approximately 38–45 lines per column. By agreement with the custodian of the manuscript, the images are not posted online; they are available for viewing at the CSNTM offices. Vatican Library
http://www.csntm.org/manuscript

 

[coraline]

he-man said:

Since the author of Matthew copied something like 80% of Mark virtually word for word that would mean he wrote it later than Mark about 80 to 90 A.D. predicting the fall of Jerusalem of Today, 1943 not necessarily of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.
1Ki 9:8 And at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house?

I reject all of your biased sources
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5

• "Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

cont'd here:
When were the gospels written and by whom?| Dating the gospels is very important | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Soulgazer]

he-man said: I reject all of your biased sources
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5

• "Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

cont'd here:
When were the gospels written and by whom?| Dating the gospels is very important | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I prefer total non bias myself. Somebody let me know when they find it.

To set the terminus ad quem, Ignatius of Antioch and other early writers show dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Dependence on Mark sets a terminus a quo for the dating of Matthew, which should be assumed to have been written at least a decade after the gospel upon which it relies. Several indications in the text also confirm that Matthew was written c. 80 CE or later.
J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11):

The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110. But how long before?
Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See, for example, 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had now been turned out.
​

Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 7-8):

It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70), and the widespread acquaintance with it which is exhibited in all the Christian literature of the second century makes it difficult to place its composition any later than the opening decade of that century. If the Sermon on the Mount can be regarded in any sense as 'the Christian answer to Jamnia. . . a kind of Christian mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there' (Davies, Setting, p. 315), this would indicate a date a few years before or after the turn of the century.
​

Concerning the knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem that the author evinces, Schweizer writes concerning Matthew 22:7 (op. cit., p. 418):

The wrath of the host is mentioned by both evangelists, but it is impossible to conceive of the king coming with his army not only to slay those who had been invited but to burn down their city (not "cities"), and doing all this while the feast stands ready for the newly invited. The parable deals with ordinary citizens, who buy fields and use oxen, not with men who rule entire cities. After his punishment, furthermore, the verdict of the king in verse 8 is pointless. Verses 6-7 are thus clearly an interpolation in the narrative, which earlier passed directly from verse 5 to the wrath of the king (beginning of vs. 7), and then to verse 8. Here the events of A.D. 70 - the taking and burning of Jerusalem by Roman armies - have colored the language of the parable.
​

There is one final piece of evidence that may establish the terminus a quo for the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus is made to say, "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." In the parallel verse of Luke 11:51, the reference is to the Zechariah (son of Jehoiada) whose murder is recounted in 2 Chr 24:20-22, which is the last murder recounted in the Old Testament and which also caught the eye of the rabbinic writers for being such. Q theorists consider the Lucan form to be primary (Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, pp. 81-2); the author of Matthew has understood the identification to refer to one Zechariah, son of Barachias. The murder of this individual occurred in 67 or 68 and is described in Josephus, Jewish Wars 4.335. Unfortunately, it is also possible that this refers to the OT prophet of the same name.
There is widespread agreement that Ignatius betrays knowledge of Mt 3:15 in Smyrn. 1:1. This example of certain dependence is offered by Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Georg Werner Kummel, Clayton N. Jefford, and the Biblia Patristica. Of this, Massaux writes (The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, v. 1, p. 89):


Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

In any event, it was fairly common for ancient writers to prophesy an event after the fact. Given that the fall of Jerusalem was mentioned as a "prophesy", I would have to date it after 70AD.

 

[Evergreen48]

"The book itself is anonymous, but the earliest tradition credits it to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Papias, second century bishop of Hierapolis; Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons; Origen in the third century: and Eusebius, who wrote his Historia Ecclesiatica in the fourth century --- all agree that Matthew was the author of this gospel and that he originally wrote it in Hebrew (probably meaning Aramaic, the common spoken language of the early Christians). However, there is no trace of this Aramaic "original", and the earliest quotations (early second century) from Matthew are in Greek.

It is difficult to determine at this time whether Matthew, as we know that gospel today, is a Greek translation of his Aramaic original or whether it was originally written in greek. Scholars, both conservative and liberal, are divided on this matter. However, an examination of the greek gospel does not substantiate the idea that it is a translation, for it has not one of the characteristics of a translated work. In fact, the Gospel of Matthew includes a number of untranslated Aramaic terms.

A unique statement within the Book of Matthew provides internal evidence to its authorship. The account of the call of Matthew (chapter 9) is followed by that of a meal taken by Jesus in the company of "publicans and sinners". One valid translation of this passage says the meal took place "at home".. the parallel account in Mark 2:15 clearly says this feast took place in Levi's (Matthew's) house. The phrase at home would then mean "in his [that is, in Matthew's] house". Here therefore, is a phrase that may betray the identity of the author.

It is posssible that Matthew wrote both an Aramaic "Gospel" of the sayings of Jesus and the Greek Gospel that now bears his name, since he was bilingual. Roman Catholic scholars have tended to uphold the idea of a Greek original based on the priority of Mark as its major source, Conservative scholars have generally rejected the idea that Matthew was dependent on Mark as a source document and hold that Matthew himself wrote the Greek version of his gospel as an original apostolic witness to Christ.

Two major critical views were advanced in the twentieth century denying the priority of Matthew's gospel: (1) the priority of Mark as the basic souce document of both Matthew and Luke; (2) the previous existence of a common source document "Q" from the German word for "source" Quelle, to all the synoptics. Neither view has substantially proven its case. There is still very strong reason to hold to the priority of Matthew as the first gospel account of the life of Christ." ... A U

 

[he-man]

Two major critical views were advanced in the twentieth century denying the priority of Matthew's gospel: (1) the priority of Mark as the basic souce document of both Matthew and Luke; (2) the previous existence of a common source document "Q" from the German word for "source" Quelle, to all the synoptics. Neither view has substantially proven its case. There is still very strong reason to hold to the priority of Matthew as the first gospel account of the life of Christ." ... A U

John Carroll (The Existential Jesus) says that the author of Matthew copied something like 80% of Mark virtually word for word. His reliance on Mark for the story of Jesus shows that he was not the disciple Matthew, as once supposed.

John Shelby Spong(Born of a Woman: A bishop rethinks the birth of Jesus) says that the author of Matthew, writing between 80 and early 90s CE, was a Jew familiar with midrash storytelling, but his primary language must have been Greek. There are few other clues as to the possible identity of the author of Matthew's Gospel.

However, some believe the author of this Gospel copied most of his information about the life of Jesus from Mark's Gospel. The author did not have any first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus and therefore the author could not have been the disciple called Matthew. We are back in the position where we do not know the name of the author.
The only proofs we have today are 2nd or 3rd century.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Matthew was written before AD70 for sure.

Same for Mark & Luke.

Matthew 24, Mark13, Luke 17 &21, etc.. depicts Jesus prophesying the fall of Jerusalem in AD70- congruent with other statements of His that all things would happen in His generation.
Unless you deny what happened in history to the Jews in AD70!
If you do, then you're just subject to any subjective opinion. You don't deny readings about the church after say AD100, so why would you deny history about the Jewish?Roman war in AD67-70? Of course, bc it doesn't fit with your futuristic imagined agenda!

Therefore, tradition tries to fit their futuristic agenda in every aspect of the Text.

If it were written in AD80-90, how does that reconcile with Jesus' predictions of those things in His contemporary generation, as he said?

It doesn't!

That's why tradition is mostly eisegesi. It is based on an established traditional opinion, but falls on its face without a proper system of interpretation.

No parallel proof texts, no audience relevance, no understanding of prophetic language used, not just in the OT, but in the NT as well.

Great post and I agree.

I would also say that is where the seat of Satan was located at

http://www.christianforums.com/t7751567/#post63423172
The Seat Of Satan

Originally Posted by sinning machine

THE SEAT / THRONE AND DWELLING PLACE OF SATAN LOCATED​

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8).
​

​

That city wherein our Lord was crucified was JERUSALEM!

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Rev. 14:8).
​

This great Babylonian city is JERUSALEM, not Rome, as many theologians believe.
When Peter referred to "the church that is at Babylon" he was referring to Jerusalem, not the ancient demolished city on the Euphrates River.

The Mother Church of Judaism (called, "the Mother of Harlots") was headquartered at Jerusalem, not the ancient city of Babylon, neither Rome.

​

Current poll results:

I view all of it fulfilled

34 23.13%
I view it as mostly/partially fulfilled

59 40.14%
I view it as none of it is fulfilled

21 14.29%
I don't really know

15 10.20%
Other [please explain]

18 12.24%

 

[Soulgazer]

Great post and I agree.

I would also say that is where the seat of Satan was located at

http://www.christianforums.com/t7751567/#post63423172
The Seat Of Satan



Current poll results:

I view all of it fulfilled

34 23.13%
I view it as mostly/partially fulfilled

59 40.14%
I view it as none of it is fulfilled

21 14.29%
I don't really know

15 10.20%
Other [please explain]

18 12.24%

It's a great poll but I'm afraid I don't understand the reference to the seat of Satan, uless you are refering to Judaism as the tree that was cursed because it bore no fruit. It was an early Christian belief, that "a vine had been planted apart from the Father".

If I prophesy the war in the Gulf, it certainly is a "fulfilled" prophesy. Let's not forget Occam's razor. Later, people might credit me as making the prediction in the seventies, if they are real fans.

There are numerous anachronisms that reveal that Matthew was written at a later date. No biggie, except for the mindset that simply HAS to Have eye witnesses. I don't, so I don't care.

Anybody that knows me knows I am no fan of war, even if I made no predictions at all about it. Anybody that knows Jesus knows Him too, independent of what was written about Him.

 

[he-man]

Great post and I agree.
The Seat Of Satan

Rev 2:12And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

13I know thy works, and where thou dwellest,even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

There was, besides, a great throne altar to Zeus cut on the Acropolis rock, symbol of "rampant paganism" (Swete) and the new Caesar-worship with the recent martyrdom of Antipas made Pergamum indeed the very throne of an adversary. [RWP]

Peter says, "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist, stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same
afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world" (1 Pet. 5:8, 9). This adversary, who sought by the stress of persecution to turn the brethren from the faith, was the constituted authority of the time, of whom also Jesus said, "The devil shall cast some of you into prison" (Rev. 2:10)

 

[Evergreen48]

John Carroll (The Existential Jesus) says that the author of Matthew copied something like 80% of Mark virtually word for word. His reliance on Mark for the story of Jesus shows that he was not the disciple Matthew, as once supposed.

John Shelby Spong(Born of a Woman: A bishop rethinks the birth of Jesus) says that the author of Matthew, writing between 80 and early 90s CE, was a Jew familiar with midrash storytelling, but his primary language must have been Greek. There are few other clues as to the possible identity of the author of Matthew's Gospel.

However, some believe the author of this Gospel copied most of his information about the life of Jesus from Mark's Gospel. The author did not have any first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus and therefore the author could not have been the disciple called Matthew. We are back in the position where we do not know the name of the author.
The only proofs we have today are 2nd or 3rd century.

No thanks, I'll go with Griesbach.

Johann Jakob Griesbach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[he-man]

Evergreen48;63464604]No thanks, I'll go with Griesbach.

Okay, exactly where is the quote you have from Greisbach? Page number, which publication? I also have copies of all of Greisbach's Bible and commentary.

 

[coraline]

he-man said:

3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet.
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Preterists attest to the chronology of events from ad30-70 Jesus is telling his disciples would occur around that Roman world.

Preterists have already quoted Paul and shown how the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, and then the end came.
\
The end of what again? Yes, the end of the age, the Jewish age.

Jesus told them the signs to look for bc the day or hour they would not know. That is why He had them be hyper vigilant, praying & watching.
Working out their salvation with fear & trembling until it passed.

The end was "yet" in AD70.

 

[Evergreen48]

Okay, exactly where is the quote you have from Greisbach? Page number, which publication? I also have copies of all of Greisbach's Bible and commentary.[/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I did not claim to have any "quotes" from Griesbach. You can find out what you need to know by going to: Two-gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Or, if as you say, you have copies of Griesbach's, Bible and commentary, you should be able to find what you are looking for at least in his commentary.

 

[he-man]

he-man saidreterists attest to the chronology of events from ad30-70 Jesus is telling his disciples would occur around that Roman world. Preterists have already quoted Paul and shown how the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, and then the end came. The end of what again? Yes, the end of the age, the Jewish age.Jesus told them the signs to look for bc the day or hour they would not know. That is why He had them be hyper vigilant, praying & watching.
Working out their salvation with fear & trembling until it passed. The end was "yet" in AD70.

I don't remember the reign of Christ on earth. I must have been sleeping. I do however, remember the war that started in 1914 which brought an end to the Jewish age of scattering in 1948 to begin the final cycle.

Psalm 137:2-6
(2) We hung our harps
Upon the willows in the midst of it.
(3) For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song,
And those who plundered us requested mirth,
Saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" (4) How shall we sing the LORD"s song
In a foreign land?
(5) If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget its skill!
(6) If I do not remember you,
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
Above my chief joy.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God, and of His Christ; and shall reign into the ages of ages.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

It is the portion of men once to die, and after this judgment, then twice dead, if after we have received the knowledge of the truth, we willfully reject it by not obeying the commands and follow those who falsely teach of a supernatural person/devil/satan and of the false teaching of the immortality of the soul, by which they have trampled the Son of God underfoot even claiming that Christ is GOD

Joh 3:15 that all who believe on him may have perpetual life.
18 He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been already judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has perpetual life, and does not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live.

 

[coraline]

he-man said:

I don't remember the reign of Christ on earth. I must have been sleeping. I do however, remember the war that started in 1914 which brought an end to the Jewish age of scattering in 1948 to begin the final cycle.

The Church never believed that until close to 1900AD.

But Dispensationalism is the most brainwashed/ignorant excuse for theology I have ever encountered in my 30 born-again years!

Such religious fanaticism is gives the the "world" opportunity to laugh at Christians who live in & preach fantasies. Instead of making disciples from "the world" these misinformed & uneducated Dispensationals can only convince those in their same choir- & not the rest of the educated world.

Most Christians today are not Dispensationals.

They either saw the error of it or they quickly left that fiction as soon as they learned that it was a scam to reignite interest in the Faith. But for all the wrong reasons.

There hasn't been a Jewish remnant since AD70. God has no Jewish covenant people anymore.

Yours is replacement theology.

You think God would replace the Church with some "ethnic group" of people.

But the Bible says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.


Hey, he-man, show us where God included the Holocaust in the Bible if He was so concerned with Israel up to this century.

Where is it then? It's just not there bc God terminated His theocratic relationship with Israel in AD70.

Dispensationism is for those who are in denial of everything about Biblical Israel.

 

[he-man]

he-man said:
The Church never believed that until close to 1900AD.
Hey, he-man, show us where God included the Holocaust in the Bible if He was so concerned with Israel up to this century.

Surely you jest!

Eze 6:8 Yet will I leave a remnant, that ye may have some that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries.

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Hos 6:6 For kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings. <H5930>
usually a holocaust (as going up in smoke)

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Eze 28:25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.

Hos 2:18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think wars and rumors of wars, and kingdoms rising against kingdoms.

While there has been famines, I don't think the famine(s) refered to in Mt.24 has been fulfilled.

According to Josephus, that was indeed fulfilled upon the destruction of Jerusalem, it's Temple and all of Judea

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD


Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive.
The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen. In the depth or this horrible extremity, a Jewess of noble family urged by the intolerable cravings of hunger, slew her infant child, and prepared it for a meal ; and had actually eaten one half thereof, when the soldiers, allured by tile smell of food, threatened her with instant death if she refused to discover it. 'Intimidated by this menace, she immediately produced the remains of her son, which petrified them with horror.


While famine continued thus to spread its destructive rage through the city, the Romans, after many ineffectual attempts, at length succeeded in demolishing part of the inner wall, possessed themselves of the great tower of Antonia, and advanced towards the Temple, which Titus, in a council of war had determined to preserve as an ornament to the empire, and as a monument of his success ; but the Almighty had determined otherwise ; for now, in the revolution of ages, was arrived that fatal day, (the 10th of 8th mo.) emphatically called " a day of vengeance," (Luke xxi. 21.) on which the Temple bad formerly been destroyed by the king of Babylon



.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I would have thought this thread was worthy of some debate.

I voted none.

If none of it has been fulfilled, then Jesus was a FALSE prophet, for He told His disciples that THEY would see ALL come to pass in THEIR generation.