Posted by Friend crtn [Friend] on November 12, 1999 at 06:46:08 {CkRQXOxAaIePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ******For Friend From Fleeing posted by Shelby on November 11, 1999 at 23:14:29:
Shelby
You said "I hold that the two have no relevancy toward one another.." Here is the difference, here is the explanation- I do.
Fine, you see relevance between Jesus’ coming and the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple. My question then remains “What does the destruction of the temple have to do with Jesus’ coming?” It is one thing to say you see relevance between those events and another thing to state and explain that relevance. My question asks that you state the relevance you see between those two things and explain how you come to that conclusion. So far you have done neither.
Why don't I see a different motivation as per your question to me? Because if I did I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as I have arrived at.
All that says is that you disagree, it does not say why you disagree. Your reason is what I am looking for. I think if you answer my request above you will express the reasoning that I seek from you. Remember that in order to hold firm convictions you must have firm reasons for those convictions. I am looking for your reasons.
I would think the proper interpretation would be the one that would satisfy the writings of all three reporters. So my question to you has to be, do you feel your understanding of the 'signs' would satisfy the question asked in Mark, Luke as well as Matthew? Better yet does the answer given by Jesus answer the questions asked by Mark, Luke as well as Matthew? These are all accounts of the same event.
Yes, I think my understanding accommodates the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Regarding Jesus answer as recorded in each account, I think each account has Jesus answering based upon that accounts rendered question. I also think the answers to all three are compatible between them. It is not a question of whether all three accounts should be totally interchangeable between rendered question and answer given because admittedly each writer recorded the incident with a measure of independence. The question is whether the accounts are compatible (or not) with one another between rendered question and answer given. I hold that they are so compatible.
It may be a couple of days before I can get back to this.
Friend