jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
I have encountered a forceful argument from a atheist that I have no rebuttal too
The outline is this.
P1 Jesus predicts the second temple will fullfill daniel's ressurection story
P2 The second temple is gone for reasons other daniel's story
C Jesus is a fake prophet
This argument is supported without reference to the usual suspect verses like "this generation shall not pass away"
Essentially the atheist says Luke 21's version of "when you see the abomination of desolation run away " verses from Matthew and Mark read as "When you see jerusalem surrounded by armies run away".
The reason this is important is this.
It is 100% the case Luke and mark/mathew are talking about the same speech.
The events immediately before in mark/luke are the same (Jesus fighting the pharasees, seeing the widow donate money and being asked about the temple's doom)
Mathew's version ommits the widow story but its clearly the same moment too.
Since all three versions of Jesus' quotes differ in wording there is paraphrasing going on but the spirit of the meaning is captured by all three.
Thus when Luke says his run away line he is discussing the same event as Matthew/Mark.
The problem is Luke's version makes it clear that the subject of the prophecy is the second temple.
Its not the temple as a institution or legacy, but literally the stones the apostles saw with there eyeballs the moment Jesus spoke.
"5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [g]vowed gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are observing, the days will come when there will not be left one stone upon [h]another, which will not be torn down.”
7 They asked Him questions, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the [i]sign when these things are about to take place?” "
Thus it seems here Christ predicts not that the temple will be destroyed by the man of sin/evil one daniel fortold of after the temple is destroyed in 70ad.
Rather it seems hes saying the second temple will be destroyed by the man of sin.
This clearly did not happen.
Thus we have a dillema if we cant solve this problem by attacking its premises.
If Jesus really did intend the above reading then we are left with full preterism or false prophet as options
Anyone got any suggestions?
The outline is this.
P1 Jesus predicts the second temple will fullfill daniel's ressurection story
P2 The second temple is gone for reasons other daniel's story
C Jesus is a fake prophet
This argument is supported without reference to the usual suspect verses like "this generation shall not pass away"
Essentially the atheist says Luke 21's version of "when you see the abomination of desolation run away " verses from Matthew and Mark read as "When you see jerusalem surrounded by armies run away".
The reason this is important is this.
It is 100% the case Luke and mark/mathew are talking about the same speech.
The events immediately before in mark/luke are the same (Jesus fighting the pharasees, seeing the widow donate money and being asked about the temple's doom)
Mathew's version ommits the widow story but its clearly the same moment too.
Since all three versions of Jesus' quotes differ in wording there is paraphrasing going on but the spirit of the meaning is captured by all three.
Thus when Luke says his run away line he is discussing the same event as Matthew/Mark.
The problem is Luke's version makes it clear that the subject of the prophecy is the second temple.
Its not the temple as a institution or legacy, but literally the stones the apostles saw with there eyeballs the moment Jesus spoke.
"5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [g]vowed gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are observing, the days will come when there will not be left one stone upon [h]another, which will not be torn down.”
7 They asked Him questions, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the [i]sign when these things are about to take place?” "
Thus it seems here Christ predicts not that the temple will be destroyed by the man of sin/evil one daniel fortold of after the temple is destroyed in 70ad.
Rather it seems hes saying the second temple will be destroyed by the man of sin.
This clearly did not happen.
Thus we have a dillema if we cant solve this problem by attacking its premises.
If Jesus really did intend the above reading then we are left with full preterism or false prophet as options
Anyone got any suggestions?