Interesting that the Bible is "the Word of God", unless someone quotes a translation you disagree with.

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I recall taking part in a debate many years ago over whether the "them" Christ referred to were the Romans or the Jews (or both). If memory serves, the consensus was that he meant the Jews. (I took the opposite position, arguing that because Luke wrote after the Temple fell in C.E. 70, he wouldn't have included a prayer by Christ that, from all appearances, His Father declined to answer.)

I had always thought Jesus' prayer was a future prayer, inclucive up to today.

But, interesting. Do you have any proof that Luke wrote after AD 70 ?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Whatever the particulars of the first-century Corinthian practice that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15:29, and whatever its origins, the very existence of the practice -- which Paul does not condemn -- indicates a belief that the living can still benefit the dead, if not procure their salvation. The practice of praying for the dead likewise suggests such a belief. And that practice is fairly well attested in the early Church. In fact, earlier than that (2 Maccabees 12:43-45 recounts that Judas and his army prayed for their fallen comrades that their sin might be forgiven).

Kind of puts me in mind that prayers for the dead who cannot speak for themselves, and baptisms for the dead who also could not speak for themselves ... many of who would hold no belief whatsoever for the reason they would need forgiveness or baptised ....

Surly this same argument could be used when an actual person is baptised... not a proxy... in the form of an infant or child.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Dont start it... It just flashed into my mind.

 

[RedFan]

I had always thought Jesus' prayer was a future prayer, inclucive up to today.

But, interesting. Do you have any proof that Luke wrote after AD 70 ?

Not "proof," but that seems to be the consensus of scholars.

 

[O'Darby]

Not "proof," but that seems to be the consensus of scholars.

The overwhelming consensus of scholars. Here is a book that got a lot of publicity last year, arguing for a MUCH earlier date for virtually all NT documents: Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition, Amazon.com. He has Luke as the latest of the Synoptics at 59 AD.

I found it unconvincing. To the author's credit, he acknowledges that his dates are far outside the mainstream and that he is merely presenting a "best case" scenario. I found it extremely odd that he sees Jesus' "prediction" of the destruction of the Temple as pretty much irrelevant to either a pre-70 or post-70 view.

 

[St. SteVen]

I recall taking part in a debate many years ago over whether the "them" Christ referred to were the Romans or the Jews (or both). If memory serves, the consensus was that he meant the Jews. (I took the opposite position, arguing that because Luke wrote after the Temple fell in C.E. 70, he wouldn't have included a prayer by Christ that, from all appearances, His Father declined to answer.)

I always took that to mean the whole world that he died for. Past present and future.
None of us knows that our sin put him there until we are told. To me...
Christ was in that moment granted forgiveness to us all. IMHO

/ cc: @Rella ~ I am a woman

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Not "proof," but that seems to be the consensus of scholars.

Well... I kind of put scholars in the same boat as scientists. They all have viable things to say that do not need proven yet they truly sway many a mind.

Hvaing read Luke more then once and parts for tens of dozens of time surly IF AD70 resulted in the teple destruction there would be a comment.... no matter how trivial.

Bible. Org https://bible.org/article/introduction-gospel-luke

II. THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: A.D. 58/60​

A. The Date of the Gospel of Luke is closely bound up with the dates of Mark and Acts, and an understanding of Luke’s references to the fall of Jerusalem

B. Acts may well be dated around A.D. 64 or 65 requiring that Luke, as the first of the double-work be written earlier:

1. The earliest date for the book of Acts is the two year imprisonment which is recorded in Acts 28:30-31 which would have been around A.D. 60 and 61.

Brittanica has this to say...https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke

The author of Luke had a cultivated literary background and wrote in good idiomatic Greek. If the Gospel bearing his name and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the traditionally ascribed author, they were probably composed during or shortly after the Jewish revolt (66–73 CE). Some scholars have also associated Luke with the Pastoral Letters and the Letter to the Hebrews, either as author or as amanuensis, because of linguistic and other similarities with the Gospel and the Acts.

For years I have been searching for definitive info on any book of the 66 we study to be after AD70.

The "experts" mostly agree Revelation was written in the AD90s, but not to any Preterist who will srgue their beliefs that it was before AD 70... and

I have almost come to the conclusion it could well be that even though the church picked and sanctioned these 66 book... that they were of a more historical reference and less of a text book for us.

 

[RedFan]

Well... I kind of put scholars in the same boat as scientists. They all have viable things to say that do not need proven yet they truly sway many a mind.

Hvaing read Luke more then once and parts for tens of dozens of time surly IF AD70 resulted in the teple destruction there would be a comment.... no matter how trivial.

Luke 21:5-6 doesn't count?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Luke 21:5-6 doesn't count?

Yes and no.

Yes, this is a recount of what Jesus had said and it did come to pass.... but not at the time that it was written in Luke

There are many people... some here... that will go to extreme explanations of why John wrote the book of
Revelation before AD70 and that proved, based on what is in Rev, that Jesus came back as he said He would in the Olivet Discourse. (Matt 24 if you want to read it again)

That Rev ws indeed a prophatic book but was fulfilled in AD70.

So when Luke says "5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [a]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 [b]another, which will not be torn down.”

This is pretty certain that Luke had to have been written before the destruction or it should have read some
way that would indicate that Yes, the temple had had beautiful stones , etc... but that is now torn down.

 

[RedFan]

Yes and no.

Yes, this is a recount of what Jesus had said and it did come to pass.... but not at the time that it was written in Luke . . .

So when Luke says "5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [a]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 [b]another, which will not be torn down.”

This is pretty certain that Luke had to have been written before the destruction or it should have read some
way that would indicate that Yes, the temple had had beautiful stones , etc... but that is now torn down.

I am far less certain than you. That Luke decided to recount this particular prophesy because he knew the temple had fallen (thus telling his audience that Jesus was a phenomenal prognosticator) is as plausible in my mind as his picking it from among Jesus's many prophesies in order to stress some other point.

 

[O'Darby]

Yes and no.

Yes, this is a recount of what Jesus had said and it did come to pass.... but not at the time that it was written in Luke

There are many people... some here... that will go to extreme explanations of why John wrote the book of
Revelation before AD70 and that proved, based on what is in Rev, that Jesus came back as he said He would in the Olivet Discourse. (Matt 24 if you want to read it again)

That Rev ws indeed a prophatic book but was fulfilled in AD70.

So when Luke says "5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [a]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 [b]another, which will not be torn down.”

This is pretty certain that Luke had to have been written before the destruction or it should have read some
way that would indicate that Yes, the temple had had beautiful stones , etc... but that is now torn down.

The fact that Acts ends where it does is certainly curious and could well be an indicator of an earlier date for Luke's Gospel. If so, then Jesus' statement about the destruction of the Temple would indeed be a startling example of His divine foreknowledge.

On the other hand, if the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple, there could hardly have been a more startling prediction to put in the mouth of Jesus after the fact.

This is why I found it bizarre that the author of the book I cited above treats the prediction as irrelevant to the dating of Luke's Gospel.

The parallel passages in Luke 21, Mark 13 and Matthew 24 all have Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple and End Times events far greater in scale that could not reasonably have been fulfilled in anything like the near future. This might suggest the Temple part was inserted as an after-the-fact "prediction." The disciples pointing out the magnificence of the stones seems just a bit convenient.

 

[RedFan]

The fact that Acts ends where it does is certainly curious and could well be an indicator of an earlier date for Luke's Gospel.

We need to consider the possibility that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third volume beyond what we have preserved as Luke-Acts. His decision to end Acts where he did might be explained by something as simple as the length of the scroll. To quote from encyclopedia.com:

"The usual dimensions were from nine to 11 inches high and 20 to 30 feet in length, although some scrolls were only five inches high, while others reached 15 inches. The length varied according to the work's length or the type of writing. Thus, a scroll of Romans would have been about 11½ feet long; scrolls of Luke and Acts, each 31 or 32 feet, necessitating the two "books" of Luke (Acts 1.1)."

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. And nobody thinks that everything the NT authors wrote is limited to what is preserved there. (For example, it appears Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthians; see 1 Cor. 5:9-11.)

 

[O'Darby]

We need to consider the possibility that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third volume beyond what we have preserved as Luke-Acts. His decision to end Acts where he did might be explained by something as simple as the length of the scroll. To quote from encyclopedia.com:

"The usual dimensions were from nine to 11 inches high and 20 to 30 feet in length, although some scrolls were only five inches high, while others reached 15 inches. The length varied according to the work's length or the type of writing. Thus, a scroll of Romans would have been about 11½ feet long; scrolls of Luke and Acts, each 31 or 32 feet, necessitating the two "books" of Luke (Acts 1.1)."

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. And nobody thinks that everything the NT authors wrote is limited to what is preserved there. (For example, it appears Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthians; see 1 Cor. 5:9-11.)

Yes, the two leading candidates seem to be what you suggest or that the abrupt ending is "theologically perfect" and was intended to inspire the Christian mission. As with so many issues, what we would like to be true drives the conclusion we reach.

The final two verses of Acts - "He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” certainly sound to me like "The End."

 

[St. SteVen]

Luke 21:5-6 doesn't count?

It seems that would prove that the Temple was still standing at the writing of the Gospel account.

Luke 21:5-6 NRSVue
When some were speaking about the temple, how it was
adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said,
6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not
one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”

/

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

We need to consider the possibility that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third volume beyond what we have preserved as Luke-Acts. His decision to end Acts where he did might be explained by something as simple as the length of the scroll. To quote from encyclopedia.com:

Oh, no... Too many characters

"The usual dimensions were from nine to 11 inches high and 20 to 30 feet in length, although some scrolls were only five inches high, while others reached 15 inches. The length varied according to the work's length or the type of writing. Thus, a scroll of Romans would have been about 11½ feet long; scrolls of Luke and Acts, each 31 or 32 feet, necessitating the two "books" of Luke (Acts 1.1)."

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. And nobody thinks that everything the NT authors wrote is limited to what is preserved there. (For example, it appears Paul wrote at least three letters to the Corinthians; see 1 Cor. 5:9-11.)

 

[Wick Stick]

It seems that would prove that the Temple was still standing at the writing of the Gospel account.

Luke 21:5-6 NRSVue
When some were speaking about the temple, how it was
adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said,
6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not
one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”

Weirdly, textual critics would say the opposite. Fulfilled prophecy is usually attributed to "they were writing after the fact and already knew what happened" by the non-believing-but-well-educated.

 

[marks]

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.

I think the simplest answer is, that was where this part of the story ended.

Much love!

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Weirdly, textual critics would say the opposite. Fulfilled prophecy is usually attributed to "they were writing after the fact and already knew what happened" by the non-believing-but-well-educated.

I need to add the textual critics to the questionable qualifications barrell.

6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not
one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”

This says you are seeing these things now, but the days are coming
when they no longer will be.

Definite candidates for the questionable qualifications barrell.

 

[Lambano]

We need to consider the possibility that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third volume beyond what we have preserved as Luke-Acts. His decision to end Acts where he did might be explained by something as simple as the length of the scroll.

Bible scholar Paul Maier wrote a fictional book called The Constantine Codex in which our heroic archaeologists discover a well-preserved Bible codex in some old church in Europe that contains the "volume 3" of Luke-Acts that continues the story of Paul and the early church through Paul's execution, plus the "authentic" real ending to Mark's Gospel. (Maier said these two would be at the top of most NT scholars' wish lists.)

Near the end of the book, Maier brings up an intriguing question: If archaeologists did ever find "Acts 2" and the real ending of Mark, and scholars were convinced of their authenticity, should they be canonized?

Anyway, it was an interesting and fun book.

 

[RedFan]

Bible scholar Paul Maier wrote a fictional book called The Constantine Codex in which our heroic archaeologists discover a well-preserved Bible codex in some old church in Europe that contains the "volume 3" of Luke-Acts that continues the story of Paul and the early church through Paul's execution, plus the "authentic" real ending to Mark's Gospel. (Maier said these two would be at the top of most NT scholars' wish lists.)

Near the end of the book, Maier brings up an intriguing question: If archaeologists did ever find "Acts 2" and the real ending of Mark, and scholars were convinced of their authenticity, should they be canonized?

Anyway, it was an interesting and fun book.

Funny you should mention Paul. He was kind enough to endorse my novel on the Arian heresy.

 

[O'Darby]

I need to add the textual critics to the questionable qualifications barrell.

6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not
one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”

This says you are seeing these things now, but the days are coming
when they no longer will be.

Definite candidates for the questionable qualifications barrell.

You don't want to do that - or at least I don't.

There is the "Jesus of faith" and the "Bible of faith." Then there is the "historical Jesus" and the "Bible of scholarship." The deepest faith, I believe, considers both. For too many Christians, IMO, the latter are perceived as a threat to the former - something to be feared and shunned.

What is questionable - and everyone knows this - are some of the criteria applied by scholars. The prime example is the Jesus Seminar, where the criteria assured from the get-go that almost nothing Jesus is reported to have said would be regarded as authentic. The massive biography of Jesus by the late John Meier, A Marginal Jew, is subject to the same criticism. He came up with something like four of the 32 parables being authentic.

No reputable scholar looks at Jesus' Temple "prophecy" in a vacuum with a preconceived agenda. Numerous other considerations regarding the date of the Synoptics and the context of the prophecy will largely determine whether it is deemed most likely a before-the-fact or after-the-fact prophecy. The "Jesus of faith" and "Bible of faith" approach are really just the mirror image of a scholar with a preconceived agenda.