(July 6, 2014 at 11:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why call that prophecy? Wouldn't we expect social commentary to find itself in the position of being accurate at least some of the time? Look at all of our pundits. They aren't wrong all the time - and whats the difference between what they do and how you've chosen to interpret the message of "jesus"? I fear the can of worms that "symbolic language" opens as well. What with a "symbolic jesus" being suggested by use of the same reasoning.
Yes- if a rationalisation is needed that's the way to go. Standard historical criteria do strongly suggest that Jesus said something along the lines of “This Temple will be mashed within a generation”, and it's good that you haven't gone down the usual 'Made up after the event' route.
So it may be that He simply looked at how He thought things were going, and concluded that when things got out of hand, the Romans would act decisively by destroying the Temple.
However that would be a bold prediction to make at a time when things were (relatively) settled in C1 Israel.
Further, because of the whole Jesus-as-replacement-for-Temple thing, any such comment had massive theological implications beyond a throwaway comment- without the destruction, Jesus entire message sinks.
I wonder if the difference between a prophecy and a prediction comes down to whether they occur in a religious context or not.
I must insist that the symbolic can of worms be opened, that we may fish for wisdom*. Jewish Apocalyptic form is a well researched and abundant literary form, and Jesus' use of it in Matt 24 parr is typicality. If we are going to understand what Jesus was saying, we need to appreciate the form in which it appears (be form critical).
Bearing in mind all of the above, Jesus' use of apocalyptic language implies a religious setting, and puts this firmly in the prophecy category.
*It's been a long day.
