(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.
