A Curious Omission

[atpollard]

No need to go that far. Mistakes are not lies. Also, we have to distinguish between true history and the hopeful legend that various churches embraced for their own agendas.

I have to admit to being largely indifferent to the ECF ... (why read what someone said ABOUT John when I can read what John himself actually wrote). So I am not an ECF expert. However, some of the stories can be disregarded as the claims of people writing hundreds of years later and simply making a mistake. The letters written by Ignatius and Polycarp that personally claim to have known John cannot be chalked up to error. Either the author lied about who appointed him bishop or the documents were always fakes ... which requires a conspiracy by their contemporaries that authenticate some of the letters and details.

If you think it is strange that John never mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem, is it not more strange that NOBODY mentioned all of the Christians disappearing and all of the wondrous events of Revelation taking place? Josephus and the Romans didn't notice all those people just suddenly gone? Nobody mentioned that the end times already came and went?

THAT really is remarkable!

******

If we really follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion, we are the Church of the Beast, raised up by apostate "antichrists" in AD 71 and have only the final judgement of all that have worshiped the beast to look forward to. Christ has already gathered the wheat into his barn and we are the chaff waiting to be burned on the Day of Judgement.

******

I think I will continue to believe that the Rapture and Second Coming are still future events. Christ will return. We are to be found still working when He does (or waiting to rise). He will gather His People when He returns.

 

[Silverhair]

[QUOTE="asterisktom]
The answer is that those books were not in the past. This is shown both by internal evidence and by the fact that the inspired Canon also came to an end at the same time as the Parousia.[/QUOTE]

You state that the books were written prior to 70 AD but all you have is conjecture. When we find external evidence for the late dating that is extremely persuasive. It is only a small group of Preterist’s that advocate for the earlier date. For your theory to fail all that has to be shown is that one book was written after 70 AD whereas you have to show that all were written prior to that date. Show us your evidence, not your speculation.

Charles Pope: “The Majority of modern scholars place the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation between 90-110 AD. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the testimony of several Fathers of the Church. Irenaeus places the work at 96 AD. Victorinus places the writing in the context of the persecution of Domitian, and indicates it was thus that John was imprisoned on Patmos. Jerome and Eusebius say the same.
Charles Pope, Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed, (November 25, 2012 by MSGR).

Tim Warner: “All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John’s banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero’s reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John.
Tim Warner, Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse, 2003.

Mark Hitchcock: “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes Mark Hitchcock. “Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant “evidence,” needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date “has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in a.d. 150. . . . The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.
”Mark Hitchcock, Date of Revelation, in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 337.

Mark Hitchcock: “John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.”
”Mark Hitchcock, Date of Revelation, in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 338.

I could go on and list many more scholars that support the late date for the writings of John and thus show that the early date you wish to put forward does not have merit.

 

[asterisktom]

You state that the books were written prior to 70 AD but all you have is conjecture. When we find external evidence for the late dating that is extremely persuasive. It is only a small group of Preterist’s that advocate for the earlier date. For your theory to fail all that has to be shown is that one book was written after 70 AD whereas you have to show that all were written prior to that date. Show us your evidence, not your speculation.

Charles Pope: “The Majority of modern scholars place the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation between 90-110 AD. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the testimony of several Fathers of the Church. Irenaeus places the work at 96 AD. Victorinus places the writing in the context of the persecution of Domitian, and indicates it was thus that John was imprisoned on Patmos. Jerome and Eusebius say the same.
Charles Pope, Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed, (November 25, 2012 by MSGR).

Tim Warner: “All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John’s banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero’s reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John.
Tim Warner, Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse, 2003.

Mark Hitchcock: “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes Mark Hitchcock. “Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant “evidence,” needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date “has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in a.d. 150. . . . The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.
”Mark Hitchcock, Date of Revelation, in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 337.

Mark Hitchcock: “John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.”
”Mark Hitchcock, Date of Revelation, in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 338.

I could go on and list many more scholars that support the late date for the writings of John and thus show that the early date you wish to put forward does not have merit.

Is it scholars we are looking to for our proof? I noticed your list is of basically modern scholars. I have a list as well, both older and modern. In fact there was a time when the earlier date was the majority view. And very few of these in my list are preterists BTW:

Andreas (fifth century), Arethas (tenth century), Theophylact (1071),
Luis De Alcasar (1554-1613), Henry Hammond (1653), John Lightfoot
(1658), Hugo Grotius (1664), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), Frank Abauzit
(1733), Hardouin (1741), J. J. Wettstein (1751), Bishop Thomas
Newton (1754), Harenburg (1759), Johann Gottfried Von Herder
(1779), E. G. Hartwig (1780), Eichorn (1791), N. Nisbett (1802), J. C.
25L. Gieseler (c. 1820), Frederick Bleek (1820), F. H. A. Ewald (1828), F.
J. Züllig (1834), J. A. Stephenson (1838), Moses Stuart (1845), Albert
Schwegler (1846), Wm. M. L. Dewette (1848), Gottfried Friedrich
Lücke (1852), Karl A. Auberlen (1857), Düsterdieck (1859), Charles
Pettit M’llvaine (1859), F. D. Maurice (1861), Philip S. Desprez
(1861), Charles Wordsworth (1866), J. B. Lightfoot (1867), B. Weiss
(1869), Henry Cowles (1871), James Glasgow (1872), H. Gebhardt
(1873), J. E. Renan (1873), A. Hilgenfeld (1875), A. Immer (1877),
Dean Plumptre (1877), James M. McDonald (1877), James Stuart
Russell (1878), Robert Young (1822-1888), Israel P. Warren (1878),
Alexander Brown, R. W. Dale (1878), J. T. Harris, J. H. Noyes,
Thomas Rattray (1878), Edward Reuss (1880), Samuel Davidson
(1882), B. F. Westcott (1882), Milton S. Terry (1883), William Hurte
(1884), August Neander (1889), F. W. Farrar, C. A. Goodhart (1891),
A. Plummer (1891), T. Randell (1891), W. H. Simcox (1893), W.
Sanday (1893), F. J. A. Hort (1894), William Newton Clarke (1894),
E. Hampden Cook (1894), G. O. Field (1895), John David Michaelis,
Philip Schaff, E. P. Gould (1896), G. Salmon Dean Stanley Tilloch, F.
C. Baur, Aube, Krenkel, Reville, Volkmar, Bunsen, Rudolf Stier,
Guericke, Niermeyer, Hentenius, Edward Robinson, Dr. Dollinger, E. C.
Selwyn (1900), William S. Urmy (1900), B. W. Henderson (1903), H.
J. Holtzman (1912), G. Edmundson (1913), A. S. Peake (1919), A.
Weigall (1930), A. D. Momigliano (1934), Ulrich Beeson (1956), C. C.
Torrey (1958), K. A. Eckhardt (1961), James Hamilton (1962), Jay
Adams (1966), Foy Wallace (1966), Max R. King (1971), Franklin
Camp (1974), J. Massyngberde Ford (1975), Ray Hawk, John A.T.
Robinson (1976), Jessie E. Mills, Jr. (1978), Edward E. Stevens (1978),
Cornelius Vanderwaal (1979), Burton Coffman (1979), Timothy A.
James (1982), David H. Chilton (1985), Arthur M. Ogden (1985),
Greg L. Bahnsen (1989), Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (1989), Ron McRay
(1990), Janice E. Leonard (1991), John Noe (1991), Joseph R. Balyeat
(1991), Kenneth J. Davies (1992), Don Preston (1992), Gary DeMar
(1994), Albert R. Pigeon (1994), Eugene Fadeley (1995), Joseph M.
Daniels (1996), John L. Bray (1996), Arthur Melanson (1998), Robert
Charles Sproul (1998), Daniel E. Harden (1999), Randall E. Otto (2000),
James A. Henry (2002), Samuel M. Frost (2002), Tom and Steve
Kloske (2003), Kurt M. Simmons (2003), Brian L. Martin (2004), Ian
D. Harding (2005), Michael Alan Nichols (2010), Glenn L. Hill
(2010), Stephen Temple (2012), Tony Everett Denton (2012), Charles S.
Meeks (2013)

I have more to add to this topic, but I wanted to get this out first.

 

[asterisktom]

duplicate post

 

[asterisktom]

You state that the books were written prior to 70 AD but all you have is conjecture. When we find external evidence for the late dating that is extremely persuasive. It is only a small group of Preterist’s that advocate for the earlier date. For your theory to fail all that has to be shown is that one book was written after 70 AD whereas you have to show that all were written prior to that date. Show us your evidence, not your speculation.

I have more than conjecture. I have both internal and outside evidence for a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation and the other books of the NT. I will gladly go into any particular that you want.

Your list of scholars is noted. But when it comes down to it they all have only one ancient advocate for their view, Irenaeus, the same man who blundered seriously on several points. One was that he taught that Christ died as an old man. You are too quickly "extremely persuaded" on the testimony, when it comes down to it, one man.


I will show you as much evidence as you want. BTW, I was convinced on the earlier date of Rev. long before I was a preterist. It is tiresome to hear someone say that we preterists "need" an early date. The late daters are the needy ones. They need to get as much mileage as they can out of Irenaeus.

 

[asterisktom]

I have to admit to being largely indifferent to the ECF ... (why read what someone said ABOUT John when I can read what John himself actually wrote). So I am not an ECF expert. However, some of the stories can be disregarded as the claims of people writing hundreds of years later and simply making a mistake. The letters written by Ignatius and Polycarp that personally claim to have known John cannot be chalked up to error. Either the author lied about who appointed him bishop or the documents were always fakes ... which requires a conspiracy by their contemporaries that authenticate some of the letters and details.

I think that error is still a possibility on the claim to have known John. For one thing the John here amy very well be what some scholars dub John the Elder. He also apparently lived in Ephesus. There is at least one ECF that speaks of these two Johns, but I forget the name now.

Also, assuming he met John (and it is possible) the probability is that he was not converted when he met the Apostle.

If you think it is strange that John never mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem, is it not more strange that NOBODY mentioned all of the Christians disappearing and all of the wondrous events of Revelation taking place? Josephus and the Romans didn't notice all those people just suddenly gone? Nobody mentioned that the end times already came and went?

Bear in mind that this is at the tail end of the Neronic persecution. There were very few Christians left. Christ Himself said that when He comes will He find faith in the earth? And Paul had earlier said that all those of Asia deserted me. So, between the apostasy of professing Christians and their being killed - or going underground - it would be nowhere near as noticeable when Christ came as a thief in the night.


More later

 

[asterisktom]

Is it scholars we are looking to for our proof? I noticed your list is of basically modern scholars. I have a list as well, both older and modern. In fact there was a time when the earlier date was the majority view. And very few of these in my list are preterists BTW:

Andreas (fifth century), Arethas (tenth century), Theophylact (1071),
Luis De Alcasar (1554-1613), Henry Hammond (1653), John Lightfoot
(1658), Hugo Grotius (1664), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), Frank Abauzit
(1733), Hardouin (1741), J. J. Wettstein (1751), Bishop Thomas
Newton (1754), Harenburg (1759), Johann Gottfried Von Herder

....

I forgot to give the source of this list. Page 25-26 "What Happened AD 70", PDF. Ed Stevens.

 

[asterisktom]

If we really follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion, we are the Church of the Beast, raised up by apostate "antichrists" in AD 71 and have only the final judgement of all that have worshiped the beast to look forward to. Christ has already gathered the wheat into his barn and we are the chaff waiting to be burned on the Day of Judgement.

You are following the line of the Dispensational charts that you have been taught. It has no basis in reality, no backing in Scripture.

I think I will continue to believe that the Rapture and Second Coming are still future events. Christ will return. We are to be found still working when He does (or waiting to rise). He will gather His People when He returns.

I will continue to realize the presence of Christ and His Kingdom. He is here now "ruling in the midst of His enemies". But we are agreed on the working part.

 

[rlvaughn]

Silverhair, I noticed you are a fairly new member who has recently started posting. Welcome to the Baptist Board!

 

[Lodic]

For many years I just thought of it as a relatively unimportant event. This was a reflection of the teaching and preaching we heard. An eye opener for me was a book I bought in the bargain bin at K Mart, Last Days Madness.

A real bargain indeed. Last Days Madness was one of the first books that I read as I was learning about Preterism. Since then, I've read several more by DeMar and others. While I was unaware of the destruction of Jerusalem, it's highly unlikely that none of the pastors, Bible study leaders, etc. that I've sat under would have also been unaware. I agree that either downplayed its significance, which comes from a bias toward a futurist fulfillment of prophecies.

 

[asterisktom]

Is it scholars we are looking to for our proof? I noticed your list is of basically modern scholars. I have a list as well, both older and modern. In fact there was a time when the earlier date was the majority view. And very few of these in my list are preterists BTW:

Andreas (fifth century), Arethas (tenth century), Theophylact (1071),
Luis De Alcasar (1554-1613), Henry Hammond (1653), John Lightfoot

....

Short List of Pre AD70 Rev. Advocates

Because sometimes less is more, I want to add this shorter list of advocates for a pre AD 70 date for Revelation. These are taken from the earlier, larger list, more well-known authorities. I added a few notes to some. Others are well enough known.

Henry Hammond (1653) the first English scholar to compare manuscripts of the New Testament
John Lightfoot (1658) one of the original members of the Westminster Assembly
Sir Isaac Newton (1727)
James Stuart Russell (1878) M.A. Degree at the age of 18, Kings College. Author of "The Parousia".
Robert Young (1822-1888) works: Bible Concordance and translator of "Young's Literal Translation" (YLT)
B. F. Westcott (1882) co-edited with F.J.A. Hort "The New Testament in the Original Greek"
F. J. A. Hort (1894)
Philip Schaff (1896) author of the 8 volume "History of the Christian Church", editor of the 38 volume "Early Church Fathers"
Edward E. Stevens (1978) author of, among many others, "What Happened in A.D. 70?"
Cornelius Vanderwaal (1979) author of "Search the Scriptures"
David H. Chilton (1985) author of Days of Vengeance" a commentary on Revelation.
Greg L. Bahnsen (1989) Theonomist author
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (1989)
Gary DeMar (1994)
R. C. Sproul (1998) among many other Reformed books wrote the preface to J.S. Russell's "The Parousia". Sproul was mainly positive, though not without some reservations on points raised.

It is ironic that many who hold Sproul in very high regard still consider the Full Preterism of this book that he prefaced as heresy.


NOTES
1. Philip Schaff showed exemplary courage in his later life. Even though his earlier editions of the History of the Christian Church assumed a late date for Revelation he, upon further study, corrected the date to pre-AD 70 in later editions. He wrote:

"The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders, 1257 but the internal
evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70)." - The History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 653.

2. Although Theonomist Greg Bahnsen wrote a glowing Preface to Chilton's. "Days of Vengeance" he withdrew all further endorsements when Chilton converted to (what he considered was heretical) Full Preterism a few years after publication of the book.

 

[atpollard]

It is ironic that many who hold Sproul in very high regard still consider the Full Preterism of this book that he prefaced as heresy.

R.C. Sproul was a Presbyterian, so many agree with his sotieriology while still regarding his views on Paedo-Baptism and Church Hierarchy to be utterly unbiblical (which is why we are Baptists and not Presbyterian).

It is an impressive list, however I note many names on it that are equally famous as great scholars and infamous for controversial views. An amusing juxtaposition.

 

[asterisktom]

Agreed. Quite a mixed group here.

 

[JonC]

It is not surprising (I am not sure why we would expect it). The Temple was important to Jewish life, but after the Spirit withdrew the Temple was not important to redemptive history.

Why would one expect Scripture to mention the destruction of the Temple?

 

[thomas15]

Regardless of who says what, in order to arrive at a preterist view one has to embrace a weak view of the actual words of the Bible. The message becomes somewhat subjective even with an evangelical flavor.

Of course as a Baptist we can claim individual soul liberty. But liberty has responsibility.

 

[asterisktom]

It is not surprising (I am not sure why we would expect it). The Temple was important to Jewish life, but after the Spirit withdrew the Temple was not important to redemptive history.

Why would one expect Scripture to mention the destruction of the Temple?

There are several reasons. Deprecated or not it was the focal point of Jewish worship for over half of that first century. It was important to the Jews. Even Paul, who certainly was clear about just what the Temple no longer meant, still had a use for it in the Book of Acts.

Also, the destruction of the Temple and all the associated rites was an important didactic point. It had been foretold in the Old Testament so if any NT writings had been more recent than AD 70 then, yes, it would be very surprising if they would not have mentioned it.

 

[asterisktom]

Regardless of who says what, in order to arrive at a preterist view one has to embrace a weak view of the actual words of the Bible. The message becomes somewhat subjective even with an evangelical flavor.

Of course as a Baptist we can claim individual soul liberty. But liberty has responsibility.

On the contrary, it was the "actual words of the Bible" that finally led me to Preterism. The time statements, the growing awareness of the importance of audience relevance, and especially the incredible connections between certain OT passages with NT counterparts were quite convincing.

Soul liberty I understand as permission (for want of a better word) to follow your Spirit-informed conscience. For me that means I am free to obey and to proclaim what I believe God teaches in His Word. That list of names a few posts up was for a very minor point. The real issue is what the Bible teaches.

 

[JonC]

There are several reasons. Deprecated or not it was the focal point of Jewish worship for over half of that first century. It was important to the Jews. Even Paul, who certainly was clear about just what the Temple no longer meant, still had a use for it in the Book of Acts.

Also, the destruction of the Temple and all the associated rites was an important didactic point. It had been foretold in the Old Testament so if any NT writings had been more recent than AD 70 then, yes, it would be very surprising if they would not have mentioned it.

I understand its importance to the first century Jewish religion, and as a focal point for zjewish worship. It is interesting that Christ rarely addressed Temple rulers, but did address Synagogue leaders. Paul did speak in the synagogues, and Jews still met culturally in the Temple complex. But I think you may be pushing it in regards to the Herodian Temple to incorporate an eschatology that cannot quite be substantiated by Scripture (which is fine, in a way all eschatological views suffer the sane weakness....i.e., us).

 

[thomas15]

I understand its importance to the first century Jewish religion, and as a focal point for zjewish worship. It is interesting that Christ rarely addressed Temple rulers, but did address Synagogue leaders. Paul did speak in the synagogues, and Jews still met culturally in the Temple complex. But I think you may be pushing it in regards to the Herodian Temple to incorporate an eschatology that cannot quite be substantiated by Scripture (which is fine, in a way all eschatological views suffer the sane weakness....i.e., us).

Well said. Too add, and I'm not lecturing anyone just adding to the narrative.

Even during the Exodus the Jews departed from the revelation given them and at almost every opportunity reverted back to the religion of either the people they met in the wilderness or that of their former Egyptian masters. This did not stop once they entered the land but with few exceptions. Even when they had the Scriptures they often replaced it with their own inventions.

During the Babylonian captivity, the exiled Jews set up the Synagogue system since they were not in the land and the temple had been destroyed. Thus started what is referred to as "Rabbinic Judaism" which has as it's authority the teachings of the Rabbis not the Bible. It was Rabbinic Judaism that Jesus encountered in the Synagogue leaders, not a faith as taught by the Scriptures. Judaism today still worships the god of the Talmud not the Jehovah of the OT.

This is one of the reasons why the Jewish leaders found it so easy to condemn Jesus and ally themselves with the Romans, which btw, they hated. In the battle between what Moses and the prophets said, and what the Synagouge leaders (who subjected themselves to the teachings of the Rabbis) said, the teachings of the Rabbis won. Jesus used the Scriptures to defend himself, the Jews were blind to that deferring to their traditions. I can honestly say that at times it is difficult for me to take the words of Scripture as God's truth, because it requires a lot of faith and can be socially awkward at times but that is exactly what it is... the Word of God.

 

[JonC]

Well said. Too add, and I'm not lecturing anyone just adding to the narrative.

Even during the Exodus the Jews departed from the revelation given them and at almost every opportunity reverted back to the religion of either the people they met in the wilderness or that of their former Egyptian masters. This did not stop once they entered the land but with few exceptions. Even when they had the Scriptures they often replaced it with their own inventions.

During the Babylonian captivity, the exiled Jews set up the Synagogue system since they were not in the land and the temple had been destroyed. Thus started what is referred to as "Rabbinic Judaism" which has as it's authority the teachings of the Rabbis not the Bible. It was Rabbinic Judaism that Jesus encountered in the Synagogue leaders, not a faith as taught by the Scriptures. Judaism today still worships the god of the Talmud not the Jehovah of the OT.

This is one of the reasons why the Jewish leaders found it so easy to condemn Jesus and ally themselves with the Romans, which btw, they hated. In the battle between what Moses and the prophets said, and what the Synagouge leaders (who subjected themselves to the teachings of the Rabbis) said, the teachings of the Rabbis won. Jesus used the Scriptures to defend himself, the Jews were blind to that deferring to their traditions. I can honestly say that at times it is difficult for me to take the words of Scripture as God's truth, because it requires a lot of faith and can be socially awkward at times but that is exactly what it is... the Word of God.

The Jews repeatedly (I believe ultimately by God's plan) rejected or corrupted what God had done (often due to a lack of understanding, but with the 1st Century Temple I believe it goes deeper than simple ignorance). Jesus' words to Nicodemus comes to mind. They had knowledge but lacked understanding.

This is, IMHO, the flaw in viewing the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as a fulfillment of prophesy.

By 70 AD the 1st Century Jewish religion held no place in redemptive history. It was important, culturally to the Jewish nation but the foundation of the true Temple (that which the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple symbolized) had already been laid. The Temple had already been destroyed and was raised on the third day.