Scholars wrong or am I missing something? End of World/Destruction of Temple

[Stravinsk]

In the past few days, I've read (or listened to) the opinions of "scholars" (some of whom I have respect for) that link the time of the destruction of the Temple to the end times. Basically they say that since Christ didn't return after this time, He made a large error and was therefore a false prophet.

Here is the response I posted to one such video:

Forgive me for not being a "scholar" but at the beginning of Matthew 24, the disciples ask not 1, but 3 questions. 1) About the Temple being destroyed 2) The end of the world. 3) When Christ returns. The consensus opinion seems to lump everything into the time period of question 1. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In verse 6 and 7, wars, pestilences, great earthquakes, Nation against Nation and famines are said to be only the beginning (vs 8). Did all this happen before the destruction of the Temple? Was "this gospel preached as a witness to all the world for a witness to all nations" at around the time of the destruction of the Temple? Did all the nations hate the disciples? How could they in 70AD? None of these things apply to question 1 about the Temple being destroyed. But they can apply to the long period before question 2 - the end of the world. So I can already hear the retort - Matt 24: 34. "This generation shall not pass away until all these things come to pass". Well, that could apply to the first question only, but if it applies to all, then it's a figure of speech meant to convey that the memory of the disciples whom he is addressing will not pass away until after the end comes. Following these verses he says no one knows the day and hour, and then in vs 48 of the same chapter, there is a wicked servant that notices a "long delay" and starts acting like Messiah will never return. Does that sound like a man living a few years after the destruction of the Temple, or men living 2000 years after it?

 

[Stravinsk]

Interesting.

This guy parses out the wording as it's written in the KJV (and apparently not in other versions) to show where Christ is addressing the disciples about what they will see, and where He is answering the second 2 questions about the end and the second coming.

 

[Lees]

In the past few days, I've read (or listened to) the opinions of "scholars" (some of whom I have respect for) that link the time of the destruction of the Temple to the end times. Basically they say that since Christ didn't return after this time, He made a large error and was therefore a false prophet.

Here is the response I posted to one such video:

Forgive me for not being a "scholar" but at the beginning of Matthew 24, the disciples ask not 1, but 3 questions. 1) About the Temple being destroyed 2) The end of the world. 3) When Christ returns. The consensus opinion seems to lump everything into the time period of question 1. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In verse 6 and 7, wars, pestilences, great earthquakes, Nation against Nation and famines are said to be only the beginning (vs 8). Did all this happen before the destruction of the Temple? Was "this gospel preached as a witness to all the world for a witness to all nations" at around the time of the destruction of the Temple? Did all the nations hate the disciples? How could they in 70AD? None of these things apply to question 1 about the Temple being destroyed. But they can apply to the long period before question 2 - the end of the world. So I can already hear the retort - Matt 24: 34. "This generation shall not pass away until all these things come to pass". Well, that could apply to the first question only, but if it applies to all, then it's a figure of speech meant to convey that the memory of the disciples whom he is addressing will not pass away until after the end comes. Following these verses he says no one knows the day and hour, and then in vs 48 of the same chapter, there is a wicked servant that notices a "long delay" and starts acting like Messiah will never return. Does that sound like a man living a few years after the destruction of the Temple, or men living 2000 years after it?

Well, you get your 'scholarly' conclusions from the scholars you want to listen to. In other words, you can find scholars for any view you like.
Your response in blue, is confusing due to your conflating 70 A.D. with Christ's Second Coming.

Christ made no error and is not a false prophet.

Lees