How the black man embraced Christianity

[Angrboda]

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.

Then, if you want to be consistent, you can't rightly bitch about it being evidence for a late dating of Mark.  It's either too precise to be anything but a prophecy, or it's not precise enough to count as prophecy.  Since it does appear to be sufficiently precise, it does follow that it is good evidence for a late dating of Mark.

What you're basing your contention that the late dating of Mark is recent upon, I'd like to know.  I can't immediately find anything relevant.  I did find the following, which seems to contradict you.

We should now turn our attention to when the book of Mark, as we have it today, was written. As early as the time of the church fathers, it has been accepted that Mark was addressed to the church in Rome, and that it was written at a time when the church there was under persecution. This best fits the time of the persecution launched against the Christians by Nero after Rome burned in 64 A.D. The text of Mark supports this. Aramaic phrases in Mark are included but always translated for the reader (Mark 3:17, 5:41, 7:11, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34, etc.), indicating that the reader would not be expected to understand the Aramaic. This implies an audience outside of Judea. On the other hand, “Latinisms”, or words which are of Latin rather than Greek origin, are present in Mark and they are not translated (as in Mark 12:42 - "quadrans" for "cent", and Mark 15:16 - “Praetorium”).

Dating the New Testament | Mark and the Synoptic Gospels

---

One of the standard arguments against the idea that Mark shows knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem is the reassertion of the text’s own character here as prediction. To take one example among many, David A. DeSilva, in his Introduction to the New Testament, suggests that

"The primary reason many scholars tend to date Mark’s Gospel after 70 CE is the presupposition that Jesus could not foresee the destruction of Jerusalem – an ideological conviction clearly not shared by all (196)."

But this kind of appeal, while popular, tends not to take seriously the literary function of predictions in narrative texts like Mark. Successful predictions play a major role in the narrative, reinforcing the authority of the one making the prediction and confirming the accuracy of the text’s theological view. It is like reading Jeremiah. It works because the reader knows that the prophecies of doom turned out to be correct. It is about “when prophecy succeeds”.

The text makes sense as Mark’s attempt to signal, in a post-70 context, that the event familiar to his readers was anticipated by Jesus, in word (13.2, 13.14) and deed (11.12-21) and in the symbolism of his death, when the veil of the temple was torn in two (15.38). The framing of the narrative requires knowledge of the destruction of the temple for its literary impact to be felt. Ken Olson has alerted me (especially in a paper read at the BNTC three years ago) to the importance of Mark 15.29-30 in this context. It is the first of the taunts levelled when Jesus is crucified:

"So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!"

For the irony to work, the reader has to understand that the Temple has been destroyed; the mockers look foolish from the privileged perspective of the post-70 reader, who now sees that Jesus’ death is the moment when the temple was proleptically destroyed, the deity departing as the curtain is torn, the event of destruction interpreted through Gospel narrative and prophecy.

The point that is generally missed in the literature, especially that which comes from a fairly conservative perspective, relates to the attempt to understand the literary function of the predictions of destruction in Mark's narrative. John Kloppenborg is one of the few scholars who sees the importance of the literary function of the predictions, noting the role played by the literary motif of "evocation deorum" echoed here in Mark, e.g.

"This raises a crucial distinction between omens and rituals that (allegedly) occurred before the events, and their literary and historiographic use in narrative (446)."

Discussions about whether the historical Jesus was or was not prescient may be interesting, but in this context they miss the point. The theme of the destruction of the temple is repeated and pervasive in Mark's narrative, and it becomes steadily more intense as the narrative unfolds. Jesus' prophecies in Mark attain their potency because "the reader understands" their reference.

The Dating Game VI: Was Mark written after 70?