Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jgj@travis.ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: teaching Matthew 24-25 Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 04:19:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division Lines: 97 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu > There may be two issues in the passage, but if there are I'm not sure you're > splitting them up correctly. Nor am I. I intended to show more of how Eusebius saw it than myself, though I find Eusebius' view quite attractive (btw, Eusebious lived c. AD 260-339, in case you were unaware of how ancient he is). > Note that the section talks about a lot more than merely rumours of wars, it > mentions nation rising up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. How > many nations were rising against nations back then, and how many kingdoms were > rising against kingdoms? An perhaps more tellingly, how many of those events > would have been known about in Israel? The Inca's may have been rising against Neither I nor Eusebius thought the Inca's were involved here. The proposed interpretation is that we are talking specifically about palestine, not the world view. > Why would Jesus interject a sign that > would not be seen until (say) 2000AD in the middle of a list of signs for the > fall of Jerusalem? Perhaps "hated of all nations" should be taken with an ounce of metaphor. That is, it is a process that started then and will end at the end. We are seeing it *happening* and have been for 1950 years or so. > If this verse is indeed referring to the abomination of desolation talked about > in Daniel 9:27, then you also need to fit the prophecies of that passage to the > events going at during the fall of Jerusalem. I'm not sure that the events > match up with the passage. (but maybe they do) Perhaps it does. "In the end of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, untill the end that is decreed is poured out on him." Sacrifice and offering ended in 70AD. As I recall, the Roman's started the seighe in 67AD -- about half of seven years earlier. Interesting coincidence -- assuming my memory is correct -- I don't have a chronological table in front of me at the moment. > While the destruction of Jerusalem was grim, it's probably safe to say that > we've surpassed that level of distress a few times in this century alone. I don't know about that. When was the last time a city resorted to cannabilism because the were being starved by an invading army? Josephus records, according to Eusebius -- I really should look up the original reference, but all I have with me today is Eusebius --, that 3,000,000 jews had come to Jerusalem for the passover when the attack occured and that 1,100,000 died. > Constantine's dream (dream mind you, not a sign in the sky) If memory serves me, at least one of the accounts of this claims that he is supposed to have seen a sign in the sky, but I don't know the reference or whether it is my memory conflating different things. > The tradition interpretation comes about from trying to mesh > together the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation While I am not familiar with all such schemes, I have major problems with Hal Lindsey's appoach. He creates this huge senerio using Daniel 11. Unfortunately, Daniel 11 is all about Antiochus and that period of time and has absolutely nothing to do with end times. > I don't mean to be as flippant about your thesis as this may sound, but I do > believe that there are a number of problems with it once all the pieces are > considered. I didn't see one once of flippancy in your post. I am well aware that there are flaws in my thesis. I just think there are in the traditional one as well. My only dogmatism about eschatology is that I am non-dogmatic about eschatology (yes I know its spelt wrong, but my speller don't know it either -- so there). My millenial views are "pan-millenialist" -- it'll all pan out in the end. In fact, I absolutely refuse to share with anyone just what my opinion is regarding pre,post,a-millinialism. I will debate for whichever the other person is not though. This exchange has made me somewhat more interested in the topic. One more very important variable to look at with regard to Matthew 24 is Mark and Luke's parallel passages. The record the same discource, but with the arrangement and choice of materials being a little different. I have put together an ascii file with these parallels grouped paragraph by paragraph and intend to study it more -- along with the relevant Daniel passages (whichever are those). I'll try to remember to mail it to you when I'm done (note to moderator: would this be of enough interest to post? -- it will be somewhat like my first posting, only quoting more scripture but still under the 1000 verse limit in the NIV copyright notice). -- ============================================================================ Jeffrey Glen Jackson _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com | bust you up tonight." x5120 | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day." ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"