Will The Temple Be Rebuilt?

[beckrl]

beckrl I am getting lost in all the quotes unquotes tag so I'll try to answer briefly.

The child eating thing was not the one you mentioned and your summary of the seige of Jerusalem is different that what I have read, most of which comes from Josephus and some from Tacitus I think.
There was a rebuff and drawback but there was also a lengthy seige.

One interesting thing was they crucified so many Jews during this time that they Nailed bodies on top of one another on a single cross (no tribulation there though...glad they were spared the GREAT tribulation).

I dont think you have considered fully my answer to the other questions you have posed: the idea that the question was threefold or the Biblical precedence for prophetic hyperbole.

Sorry, about the quotes and unquotes, I was trying myself to work through some questions.

Most not all that I have refered to is from Josephus. As for the woman and son it is from Josephus. I know that she may not have been the first nor the last to do something like that.

As for as the seign of Titus I'm not sure, but I think I remember it being only some 100+ days.

[JohnDB]

beckrl I am getting lost in all the quotes unquotes tag so I'll try to answer briefly.

The child eating thing was not the one you mentioned and your summary of the seige of Jerusalem is different that what I have read, most of which comes from Josephus and some from Tacitus I think.
There was a rebuff and drawback but there was also a lengthy seige.

One interesting thing was they crucified so many Jews during this time that they Nailed bodies on top of one another on a single cross (no tribulation there though...glad they were spared the GREAT tribulation).

I dont think you have considered fully my answer to the other questions you have posed: the idea that the question was threefold or the Biblical precedence for prophetic hyperbole.

Sorry, about the quotes and unquotes, I was trying myself to work through some questions.

Most not all that I have refered to is from Josephus. As for the woman and son it is from Josephus. I know that she may not have been the first nor the last to do something like that.

As for as the seign of Titus I'm not sure, but I think I remember it being only some 100+ days.[/quote]

try about three and a half years.

[beckrl]

beckrl I am getting lost in all the quotes unquotes tag so I'll try to answer briefly.

The child eating thing was not the one you mentioned and your summary of the seige of Jerusalem is different that what I have read, most of which comes from Josephus and some from Tacitus I think.
There was a rebuff and drawback but there was also a lengthy seige.

One interesting thing was they crucified so many Jews during this time that they Nailed bodies on top of one another on a single cross (no tribulation there though...glad they were spared the GREAT tribulation).

I dont think you have considered fully my answer to the other questions you have posed: the idea that the question was threefold or the Biblical precedence for prophetic hyperbole.

Sorry, about the quotes and unquotes, I was trying myself to work through some questions.

Most not all that I have refered to is from Josephus. As for the woman and son it is from Josephus. I know that she may not have been the first nor the last to do something like that.

As for as the seign of Titus I'm not sure, but I think I remember it being only some 100+ days.[/quote]

try about three and a half years.

From what time line do you come up with 3.5 years for Titus because that is whom I was refering too.

From 66AD to 70AD, Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman Army three months under Gallus, six months under Vespasian, and five months under Titus: for a total of 14 months.
Even in those days of the siege, Titus would stop the siege for some days.

There was total freedom within Jerusalem and in Israel, free of war, from the fall of 66AD to the spring of 68AD, a whole year! In 68AD Vaspasian attacked the city until June on the death of Nero and then went to Rome. Jerusalem again had total freedom from June 68AD until until two years later in April of 70AD when Titus arrived. Now, does all this look like three and a half years of siege by Titus?

[TW]

beckrl,
JohnDB's time frame is correct. The Roman forces under Gallus established a permanent camp around Jerusalem in 66 A.D. and began the construction of a trench and dirt wall that encircled the city. For most of the siege the Romans were content to try to starve the Jewish defenders out. They allowed anyone entrance to the city, but then would not allow them to leave. Anyone caught in the trench would be crucified on the dirt wall facing the city. By the end of the siege tens of thousands of crucified Jews lined the wall. After the defeat of Gallus at Beth Horon, Nero appointed Vespasian to crush the revolt. Vespasian arrived in April 67 and was joined by his son Titus. Vespasian began by subjagating the Galilee, he then established his base of operation at Caesarea Maritima and methodically cleared the coast before turning his full attention on Jerusalem. At no time were the Roman forces besieging the city fully withdrawn. A stalemate existed in the siege, the Romans were unable to force entry and the defenders were unable to escape. These events account for much of the time that your time line is missing. The time periods that you cite are the time periods when the Romans were actively trying to force entry to the city. The actual siege did last about three and a half years.


TW

[beckrl]

beckrl,
JohnDB's time frame is correct. The Roman forces under Gallus established a permanent camp around Jerusalem in 66 A.D. and began the construction of a trench and dirt wall that encircled the city. For most of the siege the Romans were content to try to starve the Jewish defenders out. They allowed anyone entrance to the city, but then would not allow them to leave. Anyone caught in the trench would be crucified on the dirt wall facing the city. By the end of the siege tens of thousands of crucified Jews lined the wall. After the defeat of Gallus at Beth Horon, Nero appointed Vespasian to crush the revolt. Vespasian arrived in April 67 and was joined by his son Titus. Vespasian began by subjagating the Galilee, he then established his base of operation at Caesarea Maritima and methodically cleared the coast before turning his full attention on Jerusalem. At no time were the Roman forces besieging the city fully withdrawn. A stalemate existed in the siege, the Romans were unable to force entry and the defenders were unable to escape. These events account for much of the time that your time line is missing. The time periods that you cite are the time periods when the Romans were actively trying to force entry to the city. The actual siege did last about three and a half years.


TW

The account of Cestius Gallus in 66.
Josephus "Wars of the Jews" Chap.xix What Cestius did againts the Jews; and how, upon his besieging Jerusalem, he retreadted from the city, without any just occasion in the world. As also what severe calamities he underwent from the Jews in his retreat.

"But when the Jews perceived, in the morning that the camp was empty, they ran upon those four hundred who had deluded them, and slew them.
and then pursued after Cestius. But he had already made use of a great part of the night in his flight, and still marched quicker when it was day;insomuch, that the soldiers,through the astonishment and fear they were in, left behind them thier engines for sieges, and for trowing of stones, and a great part of the instruments of war. So the jews went on pursuing the romans as far as Antipatris; after which,seeing they took the engines, and spoiled the dead bodies; and gathered the prey togther which the romans had left them, and came back they had themslves lost a few only, but had slian of the Romans five thousand and eighty horsemen. This defeat happened on the eigtth day of the month Dius in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.

Does that sound like the Roman garrison stayed are left the camp empty? permanent camp around Jerusalem

[Gerald Creasy]

Does that sound like the Roman garrison stayed are left the camp empty? permanent camp around Jerusalem

Now you are arguing the lulls of battle from the beginning of seige to the end as evidence that the Jerusalem was not under seiege for a long time??

Oddly, it is just this lull which you cite which fulfills:

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;

This lull allowed the Christians who witnessed the armies circle Jerusalem to escape. In fact, history shows that Christians did JUST THAT at this time.

This passage in Luke is the corresponding synoptic of Matthew 24.

I would also like to point out that if this refers to an event in the End Times Tribulation thaat Jesus advice is NONSENSE.

WHAT good will fleeing to the Mountains do you when modern technology can drop "Tribulation" on a target the size of a mailbox?
Or what good is fleeing to the mountains when you still can't "buy or sell"?

His advice is nonsense when considered in the FUTURISTIC schematic.

[beckrl]

Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;

That is more than the city of Jerusalem, right. Josepus tells of after is calamity that most of the eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as a ship when it was going to sink. (most of the prominent, high in station, rank)

But this lull went on for sometime (about an 15 month gap) until Vespasian. Than (about 11 month gap) between Vespasian and Titus.

Where is the three and half years of siege?

try about three and a half years

I see and history records three different sieges. All i'm arguing is that ya'll say it an three and half siege when it not.

[bibleguy]

Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;

That is more than the city of Jerusalem, right. Josepus tells of after is calamity that most of the eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as a ship when it was going to sink. (most of the prominent, high in station, rank)

But this lull went on for sometime (about an 15 month gap) until Vespasian. Than (about 11 month gap) between Vespasian and Titus.

Where is the three and half years of siege?

try about three and a half years

I see and history records three different sieges. All i'm arguing is that ya'll say it an three and half siege when it not.

I guess I'm not following the thread very well. Jesus warned that when Jerusalem was compassed with armies, "RUN AWAY, AND DON'T PACK, AND DON'T LOOK BACK." There must've been an apparent event or moment that he was describing, because Jesus' description does not seem to apply to "When you see Jerusalem surrounded, get out and don't pack or anything, because you've only got 3.5 years left.

The urgency isn't there when you're talking 3.5 years.

[TW]

beckrl,
If I may point out to you a minor error in your statement. You quoted from Josephus

Josephus "Wars of the Jews" Chap.xix What Cestius did againts the Jews; and how, upon his besieging Jerusalem, he retreadted from the city, without any just occasion in the world. As also what severe calamities he underwent from the Jews in his retreat.

In actuality the work you cite is Josephus's "The Jewish War."

Now to the point. Josephus account of the early stages of the seige of Jerusalem must be read with the understanding that he was not present at Jerusalem at that time. His account must then be viewed as a second hand report. Also one must consider when Josephus wrote "The Jewish War" he was trying to recover the favor of the Jewish leaders that had branded him as a traitor, so the successes of the defenders of Jerusalem were exaggerated. To understand this you have only to look at the composition of a Roman Legion.

Organization of the Roman Imperial Legion

A full strength legion was officially made up of 6,000 men, but typically all legions were organized at under strength and generally consisted of approximately 5,300 fighting men including officers. It is difficult to determine whether non-combatants like field surgeons and clerks were included in the 5,300 or helped bring the total number of men up to the official 6,000.

The basic structure of the army is as follows:

Contubernium: (tent group) consisted of 8 men.

Centuria: (century) was made up of 10 contubernium with a total of 80 men commanded by a centurion

Cohorts: (cohort) included 6 centuriae or a total of 480 fighting men, not including officers. In addition the first cohort was double strength but with only 5 centuriae instead of the normal 6.

Legio: (Legion) consisted of 10 cohorts.
Additionally each Legion had a 120 man Alae (cavalry unit) called the Eques Legionis permanently attached to it possibly to be used as scouts and messengers.

Therefore the total fighting strength of a Legion:
The First Cohort totaling 800 men (5 double-strength centuries with 160 men each) 9 Cohors (with 6 centuries at 80 men each) for a total 4,320, and an additional 120 man cavalry for a grand total of 5,240 men not including all the officers.

from http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php

With Gallus having only two Legions at most (the one garrisoned in Judea and the reinforcements from Syria) giving a total of 240 Eques Legionis, where then did the " five thousand and eighty horsemen" that they supposedly killed come from? That number would require 42 Legions to be present. Rome never had that many Legions at one time in her entire history! Josephus accounts of the later stages of the siege are more creditable because he arrived at Jerusalem with Vespasian and continued in the service of Titus. He not only was a first hand witness, he was an active participant as a negotiator on behalf of Titus. However care must still be taken because Josephus still was trying to curry favor with the Jewish leaders, and this no doubt colored his writings.


TW

p.s. I use Josephus a lot in my research because his writing is contemporary to the time of the early church and can provide valuable background. I also use other sources of information to verify what he wrote.

[Gerald Creasy]

What it boils down to is this: Ample reason exist to show that Matthew 24 was describing the Destruction of Jerusalem, yet refusal to believe has now come down to Just when a military action began, whether it lasted long enough with how one reckon military actions.

As I reread, The city began to be attacked as early as AD 67 when Jewish forces turned the Temple into a fortification.

There were lulls, withdrawals other cities in Judea -as you yourself have pointed out Beckl--encompassing Jerusalem--were surrounded, destroyed and thousands slaughtered.


Ultimately the discussion of Matthew 24 comes down to how Matthew 24:34 DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus Plainly says he was talking about things that would happen TO THE PEOPLE HE WAS TALKING TO.

NO one else.

It dosent matter how you factor, reason, or argue for a future generation.
ULTIMATELY you are arguing with Christ himself.

If you take ANY OTHER explanation of how Jesus didnt mean "this" he meant "that", you are NOT reading the Bible literally in any way shape or form.

[beckrl]

If you say that I must take Matthew 24 "literally " than why do you at times say that it isn't?

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

Would this be literally or figurative?

I do agree that some of the fortold prophecy is fulfilled in 70AD , but can't say all is fulfilled.

[Gerald Creasy]

If you say that I must take Matthew 24 "literally " than why do you at times say that it isn't?

I have never said that it isnt.

Hyberbole language describes events in a certain way.

For instance: If I were to say "It's raining cats and dogs" If you interpreted that with the rule you use you would go out and look for cats and dogs falling from the sky and be suprise to find water falling from the sky.

If I said the literal interpretation was it was raining heavy, you defy and say that is isnt literal because kittens and puppies are not plopping down around you.

I have given you examples --Biblical precedent for claiming that hyperbole is used.

And that is just the case with the following:

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for [their] evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory





Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling [fig] from the fig tree.



Eze 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
Eze 32:8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and
set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.




In each of these passages the Bible is describing events which happened in the past. The language has to be tied to describing those past events.

Yet if we say that it happened with "raining cats and dogs" literally, the world and heavens should not exist!!

Yet if we look at is as language describing an "earth shattering" (there we go again. Was the World literally shattered?) events we know that it was literally fulfilled!


The same can be shown for "coming in clouds" which occurs again and again in the Old Testament.

I do agree that some of the fortold prophecy is fulfilled in 70AD , but can't say all is fulfilled.

Then you only dispute with Jesus who said ALL.

You say he was wrong.

[beckrl]

So the point should be concerning "literally or figurative" is that we rightly divide the word.

I do not seek to debate every point, for we and others have already. But I would like to understand more about your eschatology view on the coming of Christ. We futurist, if that's what you call us see that fortold in Matthew 24. I believe you as well believe that Christ is returning. Do you view that as being for his saints(rapture) or with his saints( second Coming). What other scripture(s) do you understand to prophecy his coming or return. Without using Matthew for you view this as being fulfilled in 70AD.

If you like we can move this to another forum topic.
http://www.jude2.com/viewtopic.php?t=25482

[beckrl]

beckrl,
If I may point out to you a minor error in your statement. You quoted from Josephus

Josephus "Wars of the Jews" Chap.xix What Cestius did againts the Jews; and how, upon his besieging Jerusalem, he retreadted from the city, without any just occasion in the world. As also what severe calamities he underwent from the Jews in his retreat.

In actuality the work you cite is Josephus's "The Jewish War."

Now to the point. Josephus account of the early stages of the seige of Jerusalem must be read with the understanding that he was not present at Jerusalem at that time. His account must then be viewed as a second hand report. Also one must consider when Josephus wrote "The Jewish War" he was trying to recover the favor of the Jewish leaders that had branded him as a traitor, so the successes of the defenders of Jerusalem were exaggerated. To understand this you have only to look at the composition of a Roman Legion.

Organization of the Roman Imperial Legion

A full strength legion was officially made up of 6,000 men, but typically all legions were organized at under strength and generally consisted of approximately 5,300 fighting men including officers. It is difficult to determine whether non-combatants like field surgeons and clerks were included in the 5,300 or helped bring the total number of men up to the official 6,000.

The basic structure of the army is as follows:

Contubernium: (tent group) consisted of 8 men.

Centuria: (century) was made up of 10 contubernium with a total of 80 men commanded by a centurion

Cohorts: (cohort) included 6 centuriae or a total of 480 fighting men, not including officers. In addition the first cohort was double strength but with only 5 centuriae instead of the normal 6.

Legio: (Legion) consisted of 10 cohorts.
Additionally each Legion had a 120 man Alae (cavalry unit) called the Eques Legionis permanently attached to it possibly to be used as scouts and messengers.

Therefore the total fighting strength of a Legion:
The First Cohort totaling 800 men (5 double-strength centuries with 160 men each) 9 Cohors (with 6 centuries at 80 men each) for a total 4,320, and an additional 120 man cavalry for a grand total of 5,240 men not including all the officers.

from http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php

With Gallus having only two Legions at most (the one garrisoned in Judea and the reinforcements from Syria) giving a total of 240 Eques Legionis, where then did the " five thousand and eighty horsemen" that they supposedly killed come from? That number would require 42 Legions to be present. Rome never had that many Legions at one time in her entire history! Josephus accounts of the later stages of the siege are more creditable because he arrived at Jerusalem with Vespasian and continued in the service of Titus. He not only was a first hand witness, he was an active participant as a negotiator on behalf of Titus. However care must still be taken because Josephus still was trying to curry favor with the Jewish leaders, and this no doubt colored his writings.


TW

p.s. I use Josephus a lot in my research because his writing is contemporary to the time of the early church and can provide valuable background. I also use other sources of information to verify what he wrote.

As for the naming "Wars of the Jews" that is from the complete works of Josephus. It has both the "Antiquites of the Jews, and the "Wars of the Jews".

As for as the number of slain. My bad Josephus records "slain of the Romans five thousand and three hundred footmen, and three hundred and eighty horsemen." 5680 I got bad eyes....

So would you say it fits well with having two legions.