Re: not one stone upon another

[Athetotheist]

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

[brunumb]

"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

Ok, if that is true, it can be seen as external part to the temple and not necessarily what Jesus was speaking of.

It can also be seen as a complete failure of prophecy. Bible-glasses can make you see things that aren't really there.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm prepared to accept it figuratively. But those who insist upon it being literal - no one stone of the temple will be left on any other - are making credibility hard for themselves and for their Take on the Faith. It is surely shifting the goalposts a lot to say 'Jesus was only talking of the Sanctuary' or at least the Temple compound within the court of the gentiles. And I'm not sure about that, either.

However...Context Matthew shows Jesus going away from the temple and looking at all the buildings 'Look at all these. Not one stone of these will be left on another'. That's not limited to the Court of Women, Treasure and sanctuary area never mind the temple itself. In Mark, Jesus refers to 'all these great buildings' Not just one.

Luke seems to just refer to the Sanctuary, but as I suggested he seems to not know what the Temple was like and thought of the Greek/Roman temples with their dedications and gifts that he was used to and swore that as soon as his religion got the power, he'd see them all pulled down. But I suppose a Bible apologist could pick Luke referring to just one building and take that to be the Sanctuary of which not one stone is left to know whether one was ever left upon another, and let's ignore Mark and Matthew if they don't fit.

[JehovahsWitness]

... Matthew shows Jesus going away from the temple ... Luke seems to just refer to the Sanctuary, but as I suggested he seems to not know what the Temple was like ...

A curious comment given both Matthew and Like use the same word (hieros). Granted, Matthew refers to the buildings of the temple and Luke does not, but Luke gives details Matthew doesn't indicating he was well aware of what the structure had looked like before its destruction.



JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

Matthew shows Jesus going away from the temple and looking at all the buildings 'Look at all these. Not one stone of these will be left on another'. That's not limited to the Court of Women, Treasure and sanctuary area never mind the temple itself. In Mark, Jesus refers to 'all these great buildings' Not just one.

In quoting Jesus, Matthew uses the Greek word "tauta" (these things), which seems more general than "oikodomas" (buildings), which he uses in his narrative on what the disciples are looking at.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Matthew shows Jesus going away from the temple ... Luke seems to just refer to the Sanctuary, but as I suggested he seems to not know what the Temple was like ...

A curious comment given both Matthew and Like use the same word (hieros). Granted, Matthew refers to the buildings of the temple and Luke does not, but Luke gives details Matthew doesn't indicating he was well aware of what the structure had looked like before its destruction.



JW

No he doesn't. He spoke of the Temple and how it was adorned with 'noble stones and offerings'. Offerings (as the Greeks and Romans did in their temples) was not what was used to deck out the sanctuary, and to talk of noble stones is odd for the rectangular sanctuary. An observer will talk of the elegant windows, the fine columns, the shapely roof or the impressive door. You don't talk about the stones. That suggests that Luke didn't know what the Temple had actually looked like.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

Matthew shows Jesus going away from the temple and looking at all the buildings 'Look at all these. Not one stone of these will be left on another'. That's not limited to the Court of Women, Treasure and sanctuary area never mind the temple itself. In Mark, Jesus refers to 'all these great buildings' Not just one.

In quoting Jesus, Matthew uses the Greek word "tauta" (these things), which seems more general than "oikodomas" (buildings), which he uses in his narrative on what the disciples are looking at.

Yes, in quoting Jesus, but before that Matthew says that he was referring to the Buildings. Which, when you think of it is all the other things there were. Buildings,, walls, gates, steps, walkways. In any case, those 'other things' if they did not refer to the Sanctuary itself, supports what I recall was my case - Jesus was not just referring to the sanctuary but the other things - namely buildings of which some stones DID remain on others. That's if one is going to be over -literal in the prophecy.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... talk of noble stones is odd for the rectangular sanctuary. An observer will talk of the elegant windows, the fine columns, the shapely roof or the impressive door. You don't talk about the stones.

WHY DID LUKE SPEAK OF "FINE /BEAUTIFUL" TEMPLE STONES?


Evidently the stones of the sanctuary were decorated/overlaid with GOLD. While there is debate as to extent, scholars generally agree that a considerble amount of gold was a feature if the temple facade.

“Its appearance had everything that could strike the mind and astonish the sight. For it was on every side covered with solid gold plates, so that when the sun rose upon it, it reflected such a strong and dazzling effulgence that the eye of the beholder was obliged to turn away from it, being no more able to sustain its radiance than the splendor of the sun. [...] Now the outward face of the temple [...] was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white. ” - Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or History B.V. chap 5 par 5, 6
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/28 ... k52HCH0005

While it is generally recognised Josephus did have a tendance to exaggerate on occassion, the above is corroborated by the Mishnah (Shekalim 4.4) which refers to the contributions towards {quote} ““golden plating for bedecking the Holy of Holies.” and Middot 4.1 which testifies ““all the House was overlaid with gold.”






JW




RELATED POSTS

Do all references to "the last days" or "the end" in scripture refer to the last days of the entire world system of things?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 97#p808997


LEARN MORE Bible Prophecies fulfilled
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -prophecy/

For more on this topic please go to other posts related to...

LAST DAYS and ...THE SECOND COMING *and ... "DELAYS "DEBUNKED,

*The Return of Christ

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. There was a huge image of hanging grapes. It was all very fine. But none of that is 'Stones'. Is it?

[1213]

"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

Ok, if that is true, it can be seen as external part to the temple and not necessarily what Jesus was speaking of.

But wouldn't it have been what he was speaking of when he spoke of the entire city in Luke?

I am not sure what you mean. By what I know, Luke has:

“As for these things which you see, the days will come, in which there will not be left here one stone on another that will not be thrown down.”
Luke 21:6

That can be just a small part and not even the whole temple.

[Athetotheist]

"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

Ok, if that is true, it can be seen as external part to the temple and not necessarily what Jesus was speaking of.

But wouldn't it have been what he was speaking of when he spoke of the entire city in Luke?

I am not sure what you mean. By what I know, Luke has:

“As for these things which you see, the days will come, in which there will not be left here one stone on another that will not be thrown down.”
Luke 21:6

That can be just a small part and not even the whole temple.

See my OP. I'm talking about Luke 19:41-44.