The verse in the bible has Jesus saying to the disciples not one stone of the temple will be left upon another.
"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1)
Jesus doesn't say how the temple will be destroyed. When Jean Dixon predicts in the late 50's a Democratic president will win in 1960 but will not finish his first term she is accurate but she is not actually mentioning in what way. When Jesus predicted the temple was to be destroyed he mentions nothing about how it would be done. And the authors mention nothing about it being fulfilled. This seems odd, why not mention this to their readers as a great prophecy. Not one of the 9 NT writers says anything about this huge event in Jerusalem (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans) even though at least 3 of the NT writers mention Jesus and the temple.
Translation: They most likely wrote their books before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.
Or, more likely, the books were written after the events and Jesus' prophecy was made up after the fact to attribute to him some prophetic powers.
We already know that the writers felt free to make up events to give a more messianic shine to Jesus personality.
For example, the whole census fiasco that we know did not happen: the timing is wrong as no census was conducted during Pilate's reign (I know you pretend there was a second, unrecorded and redundant census) and the idea to send people to their ancestral home makes no sense: it would have been a huge disturbance in the whole country aimed at nothing but be counter-productive - you want to know where people are and where to tax them, not where their long dead ancestors lived.
But this incident was clearly made up to make Bethlehem the site of Jesus' birth, so that to appear to fullfill the messianic prophecy.
We also have the made up claim of a virgin birth. Clearly this was an attempt to appear to fullfill Isaiah 7:14. Problem being, of course, that Isaiah clearly was supposed to have been fullfilled already in the 8th century BCE and, apparently, the whole virginity bit was a misreading...
The massacre of the innocent was a similar made up story aimed at connecting Jesus to Moses. Of course, we have no reason to believe it ever happened, and quite a few to suggest it did not.
There is also some examples of the authors such as Matthew misquoting the old testament to align the text and make them appear prophetical. As was the case in
Matthew 3:3 where he misquoted
Isaiah 40:3.
TLDR version: we know that that the NT writers had no problem twist their story to make-up signs about Jesus' messianic nature.
That the cryptic mention of the temple's destruction where written after the fact and constitutes but one more example of that behaviour is the most reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis.
Where?