(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.
