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?

[Drich]

I believe the 70 ad or post temple destruction dating of any book is foolishness. Granted the temples destruction could be a rallying cry for those who knew of the apostles stories, but the one thing the temple afforded that post temple dates do not, is infrastructure to support the written records. Remember this society was verbal, in that most people do not trust the written word like people now do not trust personal accounts. why? because 2% could read and or write and to have someone translate, they could tell you anything and you would have no way of knowing the truth.

As such those readers and writers had a small niche collective penned around the temple. meaning all of the educated were taught there, they sourced their supplies there and they preserved their works there in scriptoriums. After 70 ad these resources were scattered to the wind. yet somehow according to modern scholarship most of the book containing prophesy were written at this time except the books of the OT which we have proof of at or before the birth of Christ calling for the same destruction. (modern scholars tend to only look at the books of Christ's phroprosephy and post date those)

That said the other inconsistent items is the life of the apostles themselves. Granted they thought (because they misunderstood what Christ said again) Jesus would be back before they died. so for 25-30 or so years nothing was written down. then they started dying/being martyred. by the late 50's anti-Christian sentiment was kick off in full swing. in less than 10 years after that Rome captured the two 'fathers of Christianity Peter and Paul and had them executed in 68 AD.

Which gave these two 10 years to write out their gospels and all their final letters. which is EXACTLY what Paul and Peter did which is where we get 95% of the NT. Yet according to modern scholars they wrote out 95% of the bible yet left out the gospel... You know the beginning that ties everything together?! Let me ask you when you write do you start out in the middle, and pan to have someone else tie everything you wrote together around a central character? That would be like leaving the single most important character's development to someone, after you die...

Do you just start preaching at a group of people? or do you start out in the beginning? with baby Jesus then teen Jesus then his baptism then all of his works his teachings his conflicts his death burial and resurrection his resurrection and all of his teaching after word... then the holy Spirit (which again is another reason for acts before mark) That all speaks to an authority far greater than any of us, yet this critical teaching it is left to some one else after The two church Father's death? arguably the two that knew him the best??? Why would a primary source like these two leave no provision of the most important story ever told??? That is what modern scholars would have you believe in a post 70 ad account of the gospels. Even if it was not the most important thing to you. it was their whole lives.. it was the reason the died horrible deaths it was far more important to them.. yet again they were supposed to have just let it go? That is beyond foolishness given the completeness of their other written works. We would not have a NT if not for the works of these two that pre 70AD... Can you see the inconsistency? that is why I do not believe these dates.

[Demi92]

Actually this is a better depiction of Atheism
Marxism - Socialism - Neo Marxism

[brewer]

I smell a sock.

[Godscreated]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

[Crossless2.0]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

Congratulations! You have posted what is quite possibly the most inane 'thought' ever written on a public forum.

[Godscreated]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

Congratulations! You have posted what is quite possibly the most inane 'thought' ever written on a public forum.

Why, because I'm smart enough to realize that even a religion of complete denial is still a religion, just look at the way atheist act and it will be apparent, first take off the blinders.

GC

[Succubus]

A religion of denial. How does that work?

[Amarok]

Why, because I'm smart enough to realize that even a religion of complete denial is still a religion, just look at the way atheist act and it will be apparent, first take off the blinders.

No Crossless this is the most inane ever posted on a public forum