Re: Jesus' Prophecy In Matthew

[YMNolan]

It was suggested by Raphael that I repost this question here so as to further dialogue on it...

[quote]I was having this conversation with a friend after our New Testament class in which we learned that the inclusion of Jesus' foretelling of the destruction of the temple in Matthew's Gospel (24:1-2) is an indication that the Gospel of Matthew was written after the historical fall of the temple in Jerusalem. In other words, Christ did not actually prophesy that it would happen, but it was included for the Matthean (is that the right word!?) community who was still recovering from the destruction and all its ramifications. I guess my friend and I found it a little hard to swallow that Christ's ability to predict the future was slighted. Couldn't it be that Matthew was written earlier and Jesus did indeed predict the fall of the temple?[/quote]

So what do you think?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='YMNolan' post='1401338' date='Oct 12 2007, 01:53 PM']It was suggested by Raphael that I repost this question here so as to further dialogue on it...
So what do you think?[/quote]

God's Word came first by preaching. The Gospels were written decades after Christ ascended into Heaven. Scripture was written down and later discerned from Tradition. There is no problem. Just because Christ's prophecy [i]may [/i]have been committed to paper after it had already been fulfilled does not mean he did not speak it.

[Sister Rose Therese]

To me, this strain of thought seems to arise only in this last century with a lot of modern thought. As far as I have seen the only basis for thinking that Jesus didn't predict it and that it was just made up and put in after the fact is that scholars presume that Jesus couldn't predict the future. (Just like the same scholars like to think that he didn't multiply the loaves or cast out demons.) Unfortunately, these scholars are the ones that were teaching their ideas when most of our priests were in the seminary.
I have heard that theory, which is all that it is, so many times and people have just assumed that it is a fact, because so-and-so told them so. And besides the reason I have stated above there doesn't seem to be any real evidence behind it. Proof like that would be laughed at in the scientific world. They are building castles in the air.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Sister Rose Therese

[theophane]

This is part of the "Q" theory, right? I remember discussing this in the past. I always felt that there was no real reason to suppose that the Gospels were put to paper so late. But then, Ziggamafu's statement could be just as true. Whether the Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem, or before, I feel it's equally justifiable to believe that Jesus prophesied it.

Theophane

[Dismas]

[quote name='YMNolan' post='1401338' date='Oct 12 2007, 02:53 PM']It was suggested by Raphael that I repost this question here so as to further dialogue on it...
So what do you think?[/quote]

I will hold with the Early Church Fathers, who lived much closer to the times being debated. Matthew came first, perhaps as early as 41-51. I also accept the testimony of the Early Fathers regarding Aramaic Primacy.