If somebody talks about the Jerusalem Temple being torn down stone by stone, odds are they are writing during or after but certainly not before the destruction of the Temple in 70 .
When you do finally sort out the eerily young “matches” creepily old perverts, people just looking for easy sex and potential stalkers, that online dating pool is a lot smaller.
Then, you meet someone perfect at the grocery store of all places.
The catch here is not to blindly trust the context in which the historical reference occurs. Why might the author be vested in mentioning a historical person or event in just this way?
Although the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is “predicted” in Matthew 24:1–2, it is more likely that the writer of this text about the destruction of the Temple.
Let me tell you, not one single stone will be left on top of another! ”The writer of Matthew chose to tuck his reference to the destruction of the Temple in a prophecy.
That doesn’t mean the writer first learned of it that way.We know Mark comes before Matthew and Luke because those gospels quote Mark, often word-for-word.The later you push back Mark’s date, the later you have to also push back Matthew and Luke. This can create some real conundrums for scholars and force them to rethink their whole timeline of early Christian history.Maybe a second-century writer picked up that shorter version and converted it into the two-part Luke-Acts volume that made it into modern Bibles.Maybe the same writer went back and crafted a much longer version later to serve a new purpose.For instance, when Westar’s Acts Seminar determined that Acts was written in the early second century instead of the late first, they were left with a real problem: if the same person wrote Luke and Acts, does that mean Luke is an early second-century text, too?