Recent content by Zinc

How is this relevant to what I said? I didn't say it was fulfilled. I just said that the events were supposed to happen in the first century.

Where is there "contextual evidence" for a "70AD fulfillment"? I think the events were supposed to happen in the first century. But that doesn't mean that they were really fulfilled. The second question is controversial. It could be about more than just the temple.

As I keep on telling you, you don't find the temple's destruction explicitly mentioned in EITHER Matthew 24 or Luke 21. So what? The subject can still be in view. It can still be implied. Oh, I believe the subject is implicitly in view. Just the same as with Matthew 24. Neither chapter...

I was talking about after the start of the Olivet Discourse. The temple destruction is obviously "explicitly mentioned" at the beginning.

The point is (and it seems you want to duck it) is that the temple destruction is NEVER explicitly mentioned in Luke 21. So why demand such a thing for Matthew 24?

It's funny that you duck the point. :)

Luke 21 doesn't mention a "temple destroyed" either. Sorry, but it isn't in there! It mentions an attack on Jerusalem, but it never says that the temple gets destroyed.

Luke 21 never explicitly mentions the destruction of the temple. (I mean, after Luke 21:5-6.) However, we see that (very likely) the subject is picked up again implicitly in Luke 21:20-24. So that Matthew 24 never explicitly mentions the destruction of the temple... so what? We can easily see...

So it ignores one of the questions? Not very likely. Maybe that's how you read it. But: (a) We can easily read an implicit reference to the temple's destruction in the chapter. (b) Jesus, in his answer, doesn't need to go into detail about the destruction of the temple, but he does need to...

The temple can be destroyed during that time of great tribulation. As I said before: Fact is, is that the disciples do ask about the destruction of the temple, specifically about the timing of the destruction of the temple. Jesus, in his answer, doesn't need to go into detail about the...

(1) I'm not claiming that the events of AD70 fulfill it. (2) They just needed to think that the 2nd temple destruction would be a worse time.

The "abomination of desolation" is likely a reference to some kind of idolatrous desecration of the temple. There is then a time of "great tribulation" which could easily include the destruction of the temple. Fact is, is that the disciples do ask about the destruction of the temple...

Re: The things which shall be hereafter... I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make. How about you give your own opinion and say why you think it's relevant?

Re: The things which shall be hereafter... Yeah, you see, the Bible wasn't written in English.

Well that's one interpretation. Another interpretation which Christians have, is that it's speaking of the first century generation of people then living.