(July 3, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote: that would be called a prophecy moron.

Or a "prophecy" retroactively placed in the mouth of a character to impress hearers/readers who already knew the Temple's fate. 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus did say something similar. Is that evidence of divinely inspired prophecy, or is it just possible that a Jew steeped in stories about the Assyrian destruction of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of the Judeans might somehow have figured out that the Jews' continued provocations of the Romans might lead to disaster?

As someone once said, "Glob!"

Oh gob.. they brought glob into it..
So... your saying the destruction of the temple was retroactively placed... in 70 AD, but the book was written in 66 to 70 AD (late date) again early dates put the book being written 25 years before the destruction of the temple. the only reason for the late date is because people like you can't fathom a true prophesy. Here's the problem with that though.. Jesus's anti temple anti religion attitude towards what the temp became is evident through out the gospels. It was also the reason so many turned to christianity after the destruction of jerusalem. Meaning this anti temple sentiment was hard taught and previously ingrained into the people. so when the temple fell as predicted and 'no stone left unturned' ( because the fires burned so hot it melted the gold and silver and it filled the cracks in the floor so rome pried apart the foundation stones to gain the mass amounts of gold down there.) they themselve turned to Christianity.

Seeing the title of this thread made me remember my thread asking why theists drop the S when referring to atheists.

(June 15, 2018 at 10:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: The atheists recognizes the multitude and humanizes the opposition.

The atheist dehumanizes the opposition, diminishes their perceived numbers, shoe horns them into one single entity, and emphasizes what the theist perceive to be a common animating wickedness.    It makes both superciliousness and loathing roll more easily off the tongue.

It is much the same as the Nazis propaganda, as well as contemporary neo-Nazi propaganda, refering not to the Jews, but The Jew, when alledging common racial trait justifying the exterminatory antisemetic policies.

(July 5, 2018 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote: Here's the problem with that though.. Jesus's anti temple anti religion attitude towards what the temp became is evident through out the gospels. It was also the reason so many turned to christianity after the destruction of jerusalem. Meaning this anti temple sentiment was hard taught and previously ingrained into the people. so when the temple fell as predicted and 'no stone left unturned' ( because the fires burned so hot it melted the gold and silver and it filled the cracks in the floor so rome pried apart the foundation stones to gain the mass amounts of gold down there.) they themselve turned to Christianity.

I don't see how Christ being against the established priesthood and temple is a problem for the view that the destruction of the temple was not prophetic (either because it was a contemporary event, or one readily foreseeable). Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher taught ideas that were hostile to the existing priesthood. That he was anti-establishment seems readily explained by that fact. I don't see how you feel his anti-establishment views are any kind of a problem for the type of theories in play.

(July 5, 2018 at 11:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote: Here's the problem with that though.. Jesus's anti temple anti religion attitude towards what the temp became is evident through out the gospels. It was also the reason so many turned to christianity after the destruction of jerusalem. Meaning this anti temple sentiment was hard taught and previously ingrained into the people. so when the temple fell as predicted and 'no stone left unturned' ( because the fires burned so hot it melted the gold and silver and it filled the cracks in the floor so rome pried apart the foundation stones to gain the mass amounts of gold down there.) they themselve turned to Christianity.

I don't see how Christ being against the established priesthood and temple is a problem for the view that the destruction of the temple was not prophetic (either because it was a contemporary event, or one readily foreseeable).  Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher taught ideas that were hostile to the existing priesthood.  That he was anti-establishment seems readily explained by that fact.  I don't see how you feel his anti-establishment views are any kind of a problem for the type of theories in play.

The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.

(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 11:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't see how Christ being against the established priesthood and temple is a problem for the view that the destruction of the temple was not prophetic (either because it was a contemporary event, or one readily foreseeable).  Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher taught ideas that were hostile to the existing priesthood.  That he was anti-establishment seems readily explained by that fact.  I don't see how you feel his anti-establishment views are any kind of a problem for the type of theories in play.

The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.

The thing is, Drich, either the relevant passages are specific enough to count as prophecy, in which case they are specific enough to count as evidence for a late dating of them, or the passages aren't specific enough to count as prophecy and a late dating. Christians generally have wanted to hold that the passages are specific enough. Holding that the passages are prophetic and not evidence for a late dating of the Gospel is simply being inconsistent. Either they are prophetic, which they would seem to need to be, unless Jesus is not God, or Jesus was simply talking out of his ass. If you want to adopt the latter position, that's fine, but then I'll have to hold you to the opinion that sometimes Jesus talks out of his ass in other debates and questions regarding him. Are you sure that's a position you want to consistently maintain?

(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 11:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't see how Christ being against the established priesthood and temple is a problem for the view that the destruction of the temple was not prophetic (either because it was a contemporary event, or one readily foreseeable).  Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher taught ideas that were hostile to the existing priesthood.  That he was anti-establishment seems readily explained by that fact.  I don't see how you feel his anti-establishment views are any kind of a problem for the type of theories in play.

The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.

Regardless of the actual date of Mark's composition, prescience on Jesus' part doesn't necessarily amount to supernatural insight or "prophecy" (except in a mundane sense). An apocalyptic religious figure standing in opposition to a compromised priesthood and conversant with a history of his people being punished by their god with various proxies (e.g., Assyrians and Babylonians) . . . it's really not hard to connect the dots, Drich.

(July 5, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.

Regardless of the actual date of Mark's composition, prescience on Jesus' part doesn't necessarily amount to supernatural insight or "prophecy" (except in a mundane sense). An apocalyptic religious figure standing in opposition to a compromised priesthood and conversant with a history of his people being punished by their god with various proxies (e.g., Assyrians and Babylonians) . . . it's really not hard to connect the dots, Drich.

I wasn't nessiarly referring to his personal efforts but the fact that they had been recorded elsewhere as well. and the only reason any of the passages have been post dated till after 70 ad was because no one can stand the idea of an actual prophesy comming true.

in this case there are 22 examples of this plus mentions of this in other books that predate the fall of the temple. The most point blank being the book of Acts 6 which directly repeats the line in mark mat and john. The book of ACTS was contextually written between 50 and 60.

---

(July 5, 2018 at 12:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.

The thing is, Drich, either the relevant passages are specific enough to count as prophecy, in which case they are specific enough to count as evidence for a late dating of them, or the passages aren't specific enough to count as prophecy and a late dating.  Christians generally have wanted to hold that the passages are specific enough.  Holding that the passages are prophetic and not evidence for a late dating of the Gospel is simply being inconsistent.  Either they are prophetic, which they would seem to need to be, unless Jesus is not God, or Jesus was simply talking out of his ass.  If you want to adopt the latter position, that's fine, but then I'll have to hold you to the opinion that sometimes Jesus talks out of his ass in other debates and questions regarding him.  Are you sure that's a position you want to consistently maintain?

I'll always side with what jesus says or is reported to say. fore there is always a "second" to support what is on the initial page. You may not see it but that is the wonderful thing I often do.. the challenged is to break it down so that you do to.

Seeing what's not there: hallucination brought on by delusion.

(July 5, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 12:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The thing is, Drich, either the relevant passages are specific enough to count as prophecy, in which case they are specific enough to count as evidence for a late dating of them, or the passages aren't specific enough to count as prophecy and a late dating.  Christians generally have wanted to hold that the passages are specific enough.  Holding that the passages are prophetic and not evidence for a late dating of the Gospel is simply being inconsistent.  Either they are prophetic, which they would seem to need to be, unless Jesus is not God, or Jesus was simply talking out of his ass.  If you want to adopt the latter position, that's fine, but then I'll have to hold you to the opinion that sometimes Jesus talks out of his ass in other debates and questions regarding him.  Are you sure that's a position you want to consistently maintain?

I'll always side with what jesus says or is reported to say. fore there is always a "second" to support what is on the initial page. You may not see it but that is the wonderful thing I often do.. the challenged is to break it down so that you do to.

That doesn't actually answer the question. Was the reference legitimate prophecy or was Jesus just talking out of his ass?

(July 5, 2018 at 3:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Drich Wrote: I'll always side with what jesus says or is reported to say. fore there is always a "second" to support what is on the initial page. You may not see it but that is the wonderful thing I often do.. the challenged is to break it down so that you do to.

That doesn't actually answer the question.  Was the reference legitimate prophecy or was Jesus just talking out of his ass?

lts prophecy as the bible tells it. again backed by several sources all of which had authorship dates prior to the destruction of the temple. 
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/D...The-Temple

The authorship of these books (where Jesus is recorded making this same claim several times) were not ever contested till most recently. the evidence for such contestation? the temple and other prophesy remarks. If a book has an early date of 70ad it is because it mentions the temple. these books ranged from the 40'ad to the mid 60ad and now because the temple was mentioned all those books can't have been written before 70 ad. We know the Apostles saw their books to completion before their life time. for example peter and Paul died in 68 which means their work would have to had been recorded before then. but because of the prophesy mark and luke are considered post temple destruction.