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?

[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.

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

Ok, I don't think that is about the same matter as in Matthew 24:2. Luke 21:6 and Matthew 24:2 are about same, about the temple. But, obviously Luke 19:41-44 is still also a valid scripture.

When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.”
Luke 19:41-44

Interestingly, that does not tell what city he was speaking of. Maybe it was Jerusalem, but maybe it could have been some near city that could also be seen, but can't anymore be recognized, because utterly destroyed. If city would literally be destroyed so that there is no stone on another, we would probably not even know there was a city. But, maybe it is a hyperbole, because in literal sense it would be difficult to arrange the stones so that none of them would be on another.

[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.

Ok, I don't think that is about the same matter as in Matthew 24:2. Luke 21:6 and Matthew 24:2 are about same, about the temple. But, obviously Luke 19:41-44 is still also a valid scripture.

When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.”
Luke 19:41-44

Interestingly, that does not tell what city he was speaking of. Maybe it was Jerusalem, but maybe it could have been some near city that could also be seen, but can't anymore be recognized, because utterly destroyed. If city would literally be destroyed so that there is no stone on another, we would probably not even know there was a city. But, maybe it is a hyperbole, because in literal sense it would be difficult to arrange the stones so that none of them would be on another.

This is just grasping at straws. He's at the foot of the Mount of Olives across the Kidron Valley just east of Jerusalem, utters this prophecy, and in the very next verse he's entering the temple. To invoke any other city, you would have to produce evidence that another city had been there. Assuming that another city had to have been there is just a circular argument.The city doesn't have to be named in verse 41 because it was already named in verse 28 when it was identified as his destination. It's the same city; that's the only interpretation which makes any sense.

And if it was too difficult for the Romans to actually move every stone off of another, Jesus shouldn't have prophesied that it would happen. He could have said , "Your enemies will encompass you and cast you down." That would have been enough. If he wanted his prophecy to be believable, no hyperbole was necessary.

If any god-man from any other religion were in the same situation, would you be cutting him this much slack?

[1213]

...To invoke any other city, you would have to produce evidence that another city had been there. ...

If something s destroyed utterly, it is quite difficult to sow any evidence for it. Not a long ago someone said “Now there are strong doubts that Nazareth even existed”. Maybe Jesus was speaking of Nazareth in Luke 19:41-44?

...If any god-man from any other religion were in the same situation, would you be cutting him this much slack?

I personally understand that Jesus was saying that the temple will be destroyed dramatically. I don’t think Jesus gave absolute detailed description on how it will be destroyed. to me the result looks as bad as Jesus was telling, which is why I think he was correct. If you would have said the same, I think you would as well have been right.

But, does this really matter? If the result would be exactly as you imagine it should have been, would you believe any different?

[Tcg]

But, does this really matter? If the result would be exactly as you imagine it should have been, would you believe any different?

How does questioning the possible reaction of another address the problem documented in this thread?


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #33]

If something s destroyed utterly, it is quite difficult to sow any evidence for it.

That's exactly what makes this argument circular.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

This verse assumes that the fulfillment of prophecy is clear and distinct, and that ordinary people can readily see whether a prophecy has been fulfilled or not. For a prophecy to be fulfilled, therefore, it has to say what it means and mean what it says.

If the result would be exactly as you imagine it should have been, would you believe any different?

No, because there are numerous reasons to conclude that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah (it should also be noted that the book of Luke has been dated to the period about twenty years after the destruction of the temple).

[TRANSPONDER]

"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.

Ok, I don't think that is about the same matter as in Matthew 24:2. Luke 21:6 and Matthew 24:2 are about same, about the temple. But, obviously Luke 19:41-44 is still also a valid scripture.

When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.”
Luke 19:41-44

Interestingly, that does not tell what city he was speaking of. Maybe it was Jerusalem, but maybe it could have been some near city that could also be seen, but can't anymore be recognized, because utterly destroyed. If city would literally be destroyed so that there is no stone on another, we would probably not even know there was a city. But, maybe it is a hyperbole, because in literal sense it would be difficult to arrange the stones so that none of them would be on another.

You are surely kidding us. Even aside that from Bethany down the descent from the mount of olives, over Herod's bridge over Kedron vale and into Solomon's porch is the way Jesus would have taken, From Bethany to Jerusalem gives him only one city he could have been talking about. Even without the clear prophetic reference to the destruction of the Temple Jesus cannot have been talking of any other city, Jericho (I believe) beeing the nearest.

But even if your argument was correct, what's the point you were trying to make?

[1213]

...
This verse assumes that the fulfillment of prophecy is clear and distinct, and that ordinary people can readily see whether a prophecy has been fulfilled or not. For a prophecy to be fulfilled, therefore, it has to say what it means and mean what it says.

It is possible that it was fulfilled and the people saw it. But, if people didn't see the prophesy fulfilled, why would they have kept Jesus and his teachings?

(it should also be noted that the book of Luke has been dated to the period about twenty years after the destruction of the temple).

One version may have been dated so, it is not necessarily correct and not necessary the oldest version. Those dating’s are meaningless, when we can’t be sure are the found scriptures the oldest versions.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
This verse assumes that the fulfillment of prophecy is clear and distinct, and that ordinary people can readily see whether a prophecy has been fulfilled or not. For a prophecy to be fulfilled, therefore, it has to say what it means and mean what it says.

It is possible that it was fulfilled and the people saw it. But, if people didn't see the prophesy fulfilled, why would they have kept Jesus and his teachings?

(it should also be noted that the book of Luke has been dated to the period about twenty years after the destruction of the temple).

One version may have been dated so, it is not necessarily correct and not necessary the oldest version. Those dating’s are meaningless, when we can’t be sure are the found scriptures the oldest versions.

We go slightly off -topic from one particular prophecy (though to be fair we have surely done it; it shouldn't be taken literally - comprehensively destroyed is near enough) to talking about other prophecies, which can generally be explained as retrospective history, failures (Tyre and Babylon) quotemining the OT to fit the Jesus story (death of Judas) and fiddling or adding to the Jesus story (e.g the spear -thrust in John).

And the extent to which the gospels have been changed. To take one clue...or two, rather, the angelic message at the tomb is changed in Luke because he wants to change his story from the disciples told to go to Galilee to being told to stay in Jerusalem. And the Rejection at Nazareth is shifted to the outset of his mission and a whole speech in the Nazareth synagogue and murder attempt (which neither Mark or Matthew appear to have heard of) is added. Clearly Luke is an amendment of an original version and a very substantial rewrite, too.

But as to the prophecies, if any of those helped to persuade people into believing Christianity, they were fooled, just as Prophecy is used to fool people into believing today.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #37]

It is possible that it was fulfilled and the people saw it.

It wasn't fulfilled, and people up to the present day can see that it wasn't fulfilled.

But, if people didn't see the prophesy fulfilled, why would they have kept Jesus and his teachings?

When people can't deny a prophecy's failure, they often try to ignore or downplay it.

[TRANSPONDER]

And if there's one that succeeds like the destruction of the Temple, the success of the Church and the restoration of the nation of Israel, we atheists have to field that one, too.