A little hard following your logic. Linkage of AD 70 to MT 24-25 is a stretch for nearly all dispensationalist, who hold a higher regard for early writing of the scriptures - e.g. the synoptics being written before AD 70. Many who advocate a post AD 70 authorship date do so because they discount prophecy a priori. Since there cannot be a supernatural knowledge of the future, any "prophecy" written must be fulfilled by that event - no matter if the facts of the event are something completely different than described by the prophecy. Thus their paradox - they must also deny OT prophecy in a similar manner and by doing so, must rationalize away the clear prophecies regarding Jesus.
Thus for the 'correct' interpretation to come about, other predispositions must come into play. Some pretribs have incorrectly, IMHO, linked MT 24-25 to the rapture by failing to observe the whole context of the passage. However, the passage cannot find fulfillment in AD 70's destruction of Israel.
A little hard following your logic. Linkage of AD 70 to MT 24-25 is a stretch for nearly all dispensationalist, who hold a higher regard for early writing of the scriptures - e.g. the synoptics being written before AD 70. Many who advocate a post AD 70 authorship date do so because they discount prophecy a priori. Since there cannot be a supernatural knowledge of the future, any “prophecy” written must be fulfilled by that event - no matter if the facts of the event are something completely different than described by the prophecy. Thus their paradox - they must also deny OT prophecy in a similar manner and by doing so, must rationalize away the clear prophecies regarding Jesus.
= = =
INDEED!
The REPLACEMENTARIANS are understandably loathe to be wedded to the so called ‘higher criticism’ roots of their heresies. I guess a rubber band from their Rubber Bibles just slings them quickly by that hollow foundation of their perspective.
Logically, that does not make any sense. If the synoptics were written before AD70 (as most conservatives/evangelicals agree), what is the issue with Matthew 24:4-34 being a predictive reference to AD70? Even if there were written after AD70, the words of Jesus recorded there are still from the AD33 timeframe, approx. 40 years (“this generation”) from the prophecy to the events.
Dispensationalists are hard-pressed to deny some relationship between Matthew 24:4-34 and AD70. So what the clever ones have done is to invent a so-called dual fulfillment, where Matthew 24:4-34 speaks of both AD70 and the Second Coming.
My position is that Matthew 24:4-34 is speaking of AD70 while vv 36 and following is a reference to the Second Coming. The change in subject and emphasis makes it pretty clear. In vv 4-34 Jesus gives very specific predictors of the event (wars and rumors of wars, famine, persecution of believers, etc). All these things preceded AD70. In vv36ff, there are no specific events as predictive. Instead we read language like “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.” “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. “ Very non-specific.
Many who advocate a post AD 70 authorship date do so because they discount prophecy a priori. Since there cannot be a supernatural knowledge of the future, any "prophecy" written must be fulfilled by that event - no matter if the facts of the event are something completely different than described by the prophecy. Thus their paradox - they must also deny OT prophecy in a similar manner and by doing so, must rationalize away the clear prophecies regarding Jesus.
I appreciate your concern, but that is not the case here.
However, the passage cannot find fulfillment in AD 70's destruction of Israel.
That is only a truism for those who accept the dispensationalism system as the basic method for interpreting the Bible. You views on Israel are obviously tainting the way you are interpreting that passage, and others.