From: Jan.Haugland@uib.no
Date: Mon Aug 28 1995 - 20:52:08 EDT
Philip Graber said:
> The evidence would seem to indicate (and the conclusion is widely held)
> that Matthew and Luke are both written after the destruction of
> Jerusalem. It would seem particularly awkward for the gospel writers to
> have taught that the coming of the Son of Man was to coincide with the
> destruction of Jerusalem if that is the case, especially since they still
> seem to be looking forward to it in some sense.
Since the late dating of these books is *based* on the fact that they mention
the destruction of Jerusalem and on the assumption that Jesus couldn't possibly
have prophecied about the destruction of Jerusalem, we have a circular argument
above.
If Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have him making
Jesus look very silly in stating that "Immediately after the tribulation of
those days" (24:29) -- the siege on Jerusalem (v15,16) -- the Son of Man will
come on the clouds with power and glory (v30), if indeed, He did not come.
Cheers,
- Jan
--
"The more we disagree, the more chance there
is that at least one of us is right."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT