How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled

[Heavens]

The abomination seen was what Roman brought into the sanctuary.. not the city of Jeruasalem itself

The knowledge of Jerusalem as an abomination goes way back. The Pharisees were the epitomy of abomination.

Here is Jerusalems abominations;

(1Ki 11:7) Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

(Pro 11:20) They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

(Pro 12:22) Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

(Pro 15:8) The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

(Pro 15:9) The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

(Pro 15:26) The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.

(Pro 16:5) Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY... this is the ULTIMATE ABOMINATION;

(Pro 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Which is the ULTIMATE description of the Jews of Jerusalem and why He destroyed them in AD 70.

(Jer 2:7) And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.

I could go on...

But this "abomination" of the Jews, made them "desolate". Another list of OT scriptures will show this is old Jerusalem, but I will spare you.

The ultimate abomination that makes desolate is totally centered around those whom Jesus called "vipers, sons of the devil, hypocrites, etc".

 

[visionary]

It is deeds that are abominations.. it is not a place

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by visionary The abomination seen was what Roman brought into the sanctuary.. not the city of Jeruasalem itself

The knowledge of Jerusalem as an abomination goes way back. The Pharisees were the epitomy of abomination.

Here is Jerusalems abominations;<snip>

I just started a thread on the eschatology board concerning the AoD and Revelation

http://www.christianforums.com/t7548832/
Where is Abomination of Desolation showing in Revelaton?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The knowledge of Jerusalem as an abomination goes way back. The Pharisees were the epitomy of abomination.

Here is Jerusalems abominations;

(1Ki 11:7) Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

(Pro 11:20) They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

(Pro 12:22) Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

(Pro 15:8) The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

(Pro 15:9) The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

(Pro 15:26) The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.

(Pro 16:5) Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY... this is the ULTIMATE ABOMINATION;

(Pro 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Which is the ULTIMATE description of the Jews of Jerusalem and why He destroyed them in AD 70.

(Jer 2:7) And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.

I could go on...

But this "abomination" of the Jews, made them "desolate". Another list of OT scriptures will show this is old Jerusalem, but I will spare you.

The ultimate abomination that makes desolate is totally centered around those whom Jesus called "vipers, sons of the devil, hypocrites, etc".

Good post Heavens......I agree

 

[Evergreen48]

I know it is a very old question, but why did Christ tell His disciples a bunch of stuff about a world that wouldn't exist until over 2,000 years after they were dead??........

(**He wrote, regretting having done so before he even clicked the "Post Quick Reply" button**)

He didn't.

What 'bunch of stuff' are you referring to, Tim?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He didn't.

What 'bunch of stuff' are you referring to, Tim?

Reminds me of this old movie

YouTube - The Stuff trailer (1985)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bump

 

[Hismessenger]

All of Matt. 24 has been fulfilled. Jesus said this generation shall not pass until those things came to pass. How long is a generation?
If you know anything of Flavious Josephus, He was a Jewish historian who documented the fulfillment of the prophecy right down to the heavenly events which occurred in 70AD, when Rome destroyed most of the Israelites cities and took many captive. Read it for yourself.

hismessenger

 

[Soulgazer]

The Gospel of Matthew came out of the Antioch region sometime around 85 AD. If you will remember Antioch was the center of the contention between the followers of Paul and the followers of James. Paul wrote around 50 AD, The Author of Matthew wrote around 85 AD, sometimes in direct opposition to the Pauline teachings. "whoever teaches to break the least of these shall be the least in Heaven" was in response to "But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart", which Paul wrote against those Jewish Christians who refused to put down the Torah.

Some have speculated that the Author of Matthew was a Greek converted by the followers of James, as his Gospel has a Jewish flavor but his knowledge of the prophets and Jewish law was erroneous. This was noted as early as the fourth century by Jerome, who suggested that the Gospel might be based on an earlier Hebrew Gospel.

 

[Evergreen48]

The Gospel of Matthew came out of the Antioch region sometime around 85 AD. If you will remember Antioch was the center of the contention between the followers of Paul and the followers of James. Paul wrote around 50 AD, The Author of Matthew wrote around 85 AD, sometimes in direct opposition to the Pauline teachings. "whoever teaches to break the least of these shall be the least in Heaven" was in response to "But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart", which Paul wrote against those Jewish Christians who refused to put down the Torah.

Some have speculated that the Author of Matthew was a Greek converted by the followers of James, as his Gospel has a Jewish flavor but his knowledge of the prophets and Jewish law was erroneous. This was noted as early as the fourth century by Jerome, who suggested that the Gospel might be based on an earlier Hebrew Gospel.

"The book of Matthew is anonymous, but the earliest tradition credits it to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Papias, second-century bishop of Hierapolis; Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons; Origen in the third century; and Eusebius, who wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica 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 none 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 (chap. 9) is followed by that of a meal taken by Jesus in the company of "Publicans and sinners". One valid translation of this says this feast 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 the author's] house. Here therefore, is a phrase that may betray the identity of the author."

The writings in what we currently call our New Testament have been used and relied upon as the source for making God's people "wise unto their salvation" through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, for some 2000 years now. I, for one, cannot imagine why God would wait almost 2000 years, and billions of Christians later, before he revealed the 'gnostic gospels' if they are valid and would be important to our Christian walk.

 

[Hentenza]

The Gospel of Matthew came out of the Antioch region sometime around 85 AD.

I find this problematic given that in Matthew Jesus prophesizes the destruction of the temple which took place in 70ad. No mention of this very important prophesy fulfillment appears in Matthew which suggest a writing prior to 70ad.

 

[Soulgazer]

I find this problematic given that in Matthew Jesus prophesizes the destruction of the temple which took place in 70ad. No mention of this very important prophesy fulfillment appears in Matthew which suggest a writing prior to 70ad.

I predict that in the year 1945, WWII will end. Remember, you read it here first!

 

[Hentenza]

I predict that in the year 1945, WWII will end. Remember, you read it here first!

lol That wouldn't be prophesy now, would it not?

 

[Soulgazer]

lol That wouldn't be prophesy now, would it not?

Exactly; Even St Jerome knew that Matthew was "off" in a couple area's and assumed it was based on the legend that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. The Gospel to the Hebrews has turned up only in tiny fragments, and is one of the Holy Grail of biblical archaeology.

The author of Matthew, if you study it closely, has made a couple of startling errors in his rendition.

 

[Evergreen48]

The author of Matthew, if you study it closely, has made a couple of startling errors in his rendition.

Matthew 1:18. (KJV) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."




Gospel of Phillip

"Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father"."

 

[Soulgazer]

Matthew 1:18. (KJV)

Actually Evergreen, I was thinking more along the lines of (1) using Isaiah's Prophesy of "Emanuel" which is a failed prophesy concerning the outcome of a battle, which invalidated Isaiah's status as a Prophet under Temple law. This indicates that the Author had no knowledge of Temple Law.

(2)the use of non existent prophesies such as Matthew 2:23, which reads, &#8220;And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, &#8216;He shall be called a Nazarene.&#8217;&#8221; There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament.

(3) Matthew 27:3-10, is another glaring error, "Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah", which is actually in Zechariah 11:12-13: &#8220;And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, &#8220;Cast it into the treasury&#8221;--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.&#8221; This is not only the wrong book but also a very different passage from the quotation in Matthew, which indicates at least a scribal or translational error, adding more weight to Jerrome's surmise.

Jerome picked up on these errors in the Fourth century; So it's nothing new. The problem only arises when someone starts to argue Bible Biblical inerrancy which is a much more modern doctrine.

 

[Hentenza]

Exactly; Even St Jerome knew that Matthew was "off" in a couple area's and assumed it was based on the legend that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. The Gospel to the Hebrews has turned up only in tiny fragments, and is one of the Holy Grail of biblical archaeology.

The author of Matthew, if you study it closely, has made a couple of startling errors in his rendition.

I have studied Matthew closely and have found no errors in rendition. There is also no credible evidence of a Hebrew (Aramaic) writing. Matthew does use Aramaic in his gospel but leaves the words untranslated suggesting not a translation but a purpose in leaving them.

ETA: As far as prophesy, the grammar is clear that they are unfulfilled future events. There is no grammatical hint of they being past.

 

[Soulgazer]

I have studied Matthew closely and have found no errors in rendition. There is also no credible evidence of a Hebrew (Aramaic) writing. Matthew does use Aramaic in his gospel but leaves the words untranslated suggesting not a translation but a purpose in leaving them.

ETA: As far as prophesy, the grammar is clear that they are unfulfilled future events. There is no grammatical hint of they being past.

We just cross posted. See my post just above yours.

Actually Evergreen, I was thinking more along the lines of (1) using Isaiah's Prophesy of "Emanuel" which is a failed prophesy concerning the outcome of a battle, which invalidated Isaiah's status as a Prophet under Temple law. This indicates that the Author had no knowledge of Temple Law.

(2)the use of non existent prophesies such as Matthew 2:23, which reads, &#8220;And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, &#8216;He shall be called a Nazarene.&#8217;&#8221; There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament.

(3) Matthew 27:3-10, is another glaring error, "Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah", which is actually in Zechariah 11:12-13: &#8220;And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, &#8220;Cast it into the treasury&#8221;--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.&#8221; This is not only the wrong book but also a very different passage from the quotation in Matthew, which indicates at least a scribal or translational error, adding more weight to Jerrome's surmise.

Jerome picked up on these errors in the Fourth century; So it's nothing new. The problem only arises when someone starts to argue Bible Biblical inerrancy which is a much more modern doctrine.

 

[Hentenza]

Actually Evergreen, I was thinking more along the lines of (1) using Isaiah's Prophesy of "Emanuel" which is a failed prophesy concerning the outcome of a battle, which invalidated Isaiah's status as a Prophet under Temple law. This indicates that the Author had no knowledge of Temple Law.

Chapter please I don't want to assume and respond to the wrong "battle". Thanks.

(2)the use of non existent prophesies such as Matthew 2:23, which reads, “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament.

Yes, this is one that is usually misunderstood by reading the verse without considering the grammatical and historical context.

1. The word for "prophet" here is plural not singular (&#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#8182;&#957;- genitive plural masculine). There is not just one single prophet making this prophesy but it is a prophesy that more than one prophet has foretold making it a theme among the prophets.

2. Living in the town of Nazareth is consistent with calling Him a Nazarene which is what Matthew is focusing on. Notice that the text of 2:23 grammatically makes the object of the prophesy not that He lived in Nazareth but that He would be called a Nazarene.

3. In Jesus time calling someone a Nazarene was a term of derision. "Nothing good comes from Nazareth" Nathanial points out in John 1:46 as an example. '“You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.” answered some of the people at the Jewish feast of Booths when some proclaimed that Jesus was a prophet (John 7:52). Just before this the skeptics had already set the tone when they exclaimed "“Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?" (John 7:41). Nazareth was a town in Galilee.

4. From the grammatical and historical context the prophesy that was being fulfilled related to Jesus being despised and rejected. Examples of these prophesies are depicted in Isaiah 52-53 and Psalms 22.

I am going to address the next one in a separate post.

 

[Hentenza]

(3) Matthew 27:3-10, is another glaring error, "Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah", which is actually in Zechariah 11:12-13: &#8220;And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, &#8220;Cast it into the treasury&#8221;--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.&#8221; This is not only the wrong book but also a very different passage from the quotation in Matthew, which indicates at least a scribal or translational error, adding more weight to Jerrome's surmise.

In context Matthew has Jeremiah 1-13 in his mind specially with his references to "the blood of the innocent' (v. 4), "the potter" (vs. 1 and 11), the renaming of a place in the valley of Hinnom (v.6), violence (v.1), and the judgment and burial by God of the Jewish leaders (v. 11). Matthew is using typology and combining allusions to texts in both Jeremiah and Zechariah. The common theme between them and Matthew being the quality of the leadership. Israel rejected the 'good" leaders (such as Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Jesus) and consequently suffer under "bad" ones.

Matthew is following a standard literary convention of his time by referring only to one source ( the more obscure but more important one in this case). Mark also employed the same literary convention in 1:2 by combining quotations from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 (and probably Exodus 23:20) but only citing Isaiah.

As with most of the references of the OT in the NT narratives the lack of closer or exact parallel between the scriptural text and the actual event just testifies to their historicity. Matthew is not falsifying history in order to conform to a passage of scripture but rather seeks passages that may illuminate the event as it happened while citing just one of the sources. This is again a common literary convention of his time.

Jerome picked up on these errors in the Fourth century; So it's nothing new. The problem only arises when someone starts to argue Bible Biblical inerrancy which is a much more modern doctrine.

We are going to have fun then since I am one of those who believes in Biblical inerrancy (as it pertains to the original autographs).