Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Right, no body but strangely enough, three foreskins have been recovered and promptly put on display. Go figure.

Divine regeneration.

 

[dejudge]

Actually, what's cringe-worthy is your absolute lack of knowledge about any of the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (19) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

I think that at some point of time in those fifteen days the topic of Jesus probably came up.

As an aside, if I told you that I had a brother would you then ask me if I had met him?

Again, you are speculating. We are not interested in your imaginative assumptions.

A Pauline writer claimed he immediately consulted entities that were NOT of Flesh and blood [by revelation of the Resurrected Jesus] when he was called by God. One of the Pauline writers specifically stated that he also used Scriptures.

Once you reject the claims by the Pauline writers then you have exposed that they are NOT historically credible.

It is just illogical to assume you know what happened when you don't even have any corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were in Jerusalem and have no corroborative evidence that James the Apostle and Cephas were figures of history.

 

[Brainache]

Actually, what's cringe-worthy is your absolute lack of knowledge about any of the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (19) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

I think that at some point of time in those fifteen days the topic of Jesus probably came up.

As an aside, if I told you that I had a brother would you then ask me if I had met him?

You are just speculating!

They might have talked about the weather and the price of pork in Jerusalem...

You don't know that they spoke about anything.

You don't know if Paul, Cephas or James even existed!

It's all fake! 2nd Century!

Faith!

Again, you are speculating. We are not interested in your imaginative assumptions.

A Pauline writer claimed he immediately consulted entities that were NOT of Flesh and blood [by revelation of the Resurrected Jesus] when he was called by God. One of the Pauline writers specifically stated that he also used Scriptures.

Once you reject the claims by the Pauline writers then you have exposed that they are NOT historically credible.

It is just illogical to assume you know what happened when you don't even have any corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were in Jerusalem and have no corroborative evidence that James the Apostle and Cephas were figures of history.

What a surprise.

Your opinion is uneducated, half-formed and illogical.

It has already been rejected by all participants in this debate.

Repeating it will not change that fact.

 

[dejudge]

Again, you are speculating. We are not interested in your imaginative assumptions.

A Pauline writer claimed he immediately consulted entities that were NOT of Flesh and blood [by revelation of the Resurrected Jesus] when he was called by God. One of the Pauline writers specifically stated that he also used Scriptures.

Once you reject the claims by the Pauline writers then you have exposed that they are NOT historically credible.

It is just illogical to assume you know what happened when you don't even have any corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were in Jerusalem and have no corroborative evidence that James the Apostle and Cephas were figures of history.

]What a surprise.

Your opinion is uneducated, half-formed and illogical.

It has already been rejected by all participants in this debate.

Repeating it will not change that fact.

Your post is not surprising.

We know the history of the Failed Quests for HJ.

It is Your opinion that is fringe, un-evidenced, half-formed and illogical. You very well know that you have NO evidence at all for an HJ.

You have not even been able to convince yourself that there was an HJ and put forward the absurd notion that Paul was an Herodian and Jesus was a Zealot without a shred of evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

You are just a convenient cherry-picking Bible Believer.

1. The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later based on the existing dated evidence.

2. All writings of antiquity that mention Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier than the 2nd century.

3. The authors of the NT are all FAKES posing as 1st century pre 70 CE authors.

4. The Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 1st century.

5. The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument with Multiple failures after hundreds of years with a wide array of irreconcilable HJ.

 

[DOC]

1. The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later based on the existing dated evidence.

2. All writings of antiquity that mention Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier than the 2nd century.

3. The authors of the NT are all FAKES posing as 1st century pre 70 CE authors.

4. The Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 1st century.

5. The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument with Multiple failures after hundreds of years with a wide array of irreconcilable HJ.

Most scholars disagree with your latest uncited argument by assertion:

From the Wiki article "First Epistle to the Thessalonians,"

"The first letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52,[1] making it the first written book in the New Testament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians

So about 19 years after the crucifixion it is probable that (former Christian hater) Paul was writing a letter to an already established Christian Church.

Here is another quote from the above article:

"The majority of New Testament scholars hold 1 Thessalonians to be authentic, although a number of scholars in the mid-19th century contested its authenticity, most notably Clement Schrader and F.C. Baur.[3] 1 Thessalonians matches other accepted Pauline letters, both in style and in content, and its authorship is also affirmed by 2 Thessalonians.[4]"

 

[maximara]

You are just speculating!

So are the HJers. Your point?

 

[maximara]

Most scholars disagree with your latest uncited argument by assertion:

From the Wiki article "First Epistle to the Thessalonians,"

"The first letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52,[1] making it the first written book in the New Testament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians

So about 19 years after the crucifixion it is probable that (former Christian hater) Paul was writing a letter to an already established Christian Church

But we again run into the issue of why Paul knows only generalities about Jesus. Just as the existence of a John Frum cult doesn't mean the existence of a John Frum the existence of a Christian cult doesn't mean the existence of a Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

1. The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later based on the existing dated evidence.

2. All writings of antiquity that mention Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier than the 2nd century.

3. The authors of the NT are all FAKES posing as 1st century pre 70 CE authors.

4. The Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 1st century.

5. The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument with Multiple failures after hundreds of years with a wide array of irreconcilable HJ.

Most scholars disagree with your latest uncited argument by assertion:

From the Wiki article "First Epistle to the Thessalonians,"

"The first letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52,[1] making it the first written book in the New Testament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians

You forgot to tell us that most Scholars are likely to be Christians who may also worship the Pauline Jesus as their resurrected Lord and Savior and expect the Pauline Jesus to give them a Gift if they proclaim that the Pauline Corpus is authentic and historically credible.

Ratzinger, the former Bishop of Rome, is a Scholar who preached that the Pauline Corpus is credible but without a shred of corroborative evidence.

Christian Scholars typically accept the Pauline Corpus by Faith.

I do not deal with Faith--I need evidence from antiquity for the Pauline Corpus.

There is none!!

You may be wasting time.

May I also remind you that there is ZERO corroborative evidence for any 1st century pre 70 CE Pauline writings

So about 19 years after the crucifixion it is probable that (former Christian hater) Paul was writing a letter to an already established Christian Church.

What did you write?

19 years after the crucifixion?

19 years AFTER the crucifixion would be c 69 CE based on "Against Heresies" attributed Irenaeus.

When did you say Paul wrote a letter to an established Christian Church?

Paul wrote letters AFTER Revelation by John according to the Muratorian Canon.


Apologetic writers contradict the Pauline Corpus so you are going to need corroborative evidence from the 1st century pre 70 C E.

There is None.

You seem to know what Scholars imagine about the Pauline Corpus but don't know the evidence.

Here is another quote from the above article:

"The majority of New Testament scholars hold 1 Thessalonians to be authentic, although a number of scholars in the mid-19th century contested its authenticity, most notably Clement Schrader and F.C. Baur.[3] 1 Thessalonians matches other accepted Pauline letters, both in style and in content, and its authorship is also affirmed by 2 Thessalonians.[4]"

Here are some of your problems.

1. The Pauline Jesus was a resurrected Ghost.

2. You have no supporting evidence from the 1st century.

3. 2 Thessalonians is even regarded as a forgery or false attributed writing by Scholars.

You are merely arguing that Paul wrote his Ghost story very early--that's all.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The Pauline Jesus is just a Glorified Ghost character--the Son of God.

We can confirm that in antiquity that Jesus was an established Ghost character.

Read the Nicene Creed. Jesus and the Holy Ghost are One.

The Pauline Corpus is just about a stupid ridiculous Ghost story which appears to be propagated by illiterates based on Justin.

 

[Brainache]

So are the HJers. Your point?

Sarcasm Max, sarcasm.

Sorry, I forgot the smiley face.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge, you are telling us that a person is

just a convenient cherry-picking Bible Believer

unless she or he accepts the following propositions

1. The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later based on the existing dated evidence.
2. All writings of antiquity that mention Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier than the 2nd century.
3. The authors of the NT are all FAKES posing as 1st century pre 70 CE authors.
4. The Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 1st century.
5. The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument with Multiple failures after hundreds of years with a wide array of irreconcilable HJ.

Well, you've certainly added many an atheist to the ranks of "Bible Believers". At least you're not impugning the "veracity" of these "believers", bless you.

 

[Brainache]

But we again run into the issue of why Paul knows only generalities about Jesus. Just as the existence of a John Frum cult doesn't mean the existence of a John Frum the existence of a Christian cult doesn't mean the existence of a Jesus.

Why do you think that Paul would put everything he knew about Jesus into his business letters?

The John Frumm Cult is based around the idea of outsiders bringing material Wealth to the people.

The Jewish Messiah Cult in the first Century was about one of their own people rising up and over-throwing the oppressors.

Apparently one of these Messiah Cults settled on "Jesus", who didn't perform as advertised. A non-flesh and blood Messiah would have been a very radical idea at that time.

Paul said Jesus' "Messiah Phase" started after the crucifixion. That was radical enough to get him kicked out of Jerusalem by an angry mob. We don't hear of anyone proclaiming any kind of "Spiritual Messiah" before Paul.

That is what you guys need to show: Evidence of this Mystical Messiah who was not "of the flesh" or "Under the Law".

Until then, your theory has less plausibility than the HJ idea.

Whatever happened to Carrier's book that was due out last month?

 

[dejudge]

Well, you've certainly added many an atheist to the ranks of "Bible Believers". At least you're not impugning the "veracity" of these "believers", bless you.

Brainache is just a convenient cherry-picking Bible Believer without a shred of corroborative evidence for Jesus and Paul.

At one time he claims James was the Lord's brother in Galatians and at another time he claims he never believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

Why don't you argue about Braianache's veracity?

You know that it is written in the Pauline Corpus that Jesus was a Spirit and that no 1st century manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus has ever been found so please stop wasting our time with fallacious arguments.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later. I can only review my position when new evidence surfaces.

You have no new evidence.

Anyhow there is an on-going Quest for HJ --you may be lucky someday.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache is just a convenient cherry-picking Bible Believer without a shred of corroborative evidence for Jesus and Paul.

At one time he claims James was the Lord's brother in Galatians and at another time he claims he never believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

Why don't you argue about Braianache's veracity?

You know that it is written in the Pauline Corpus that Jesus was a Spirit and that no 1st century manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus has ever been found so please stop wasting our time with fallacious arguments.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later. I can only review my position when new evidence surfaces.

You have no new evidence.

Anyhow there is an on-going Quest for HJ --you may be lucky someday.

Everybody is aware of your opinion dejudge, yet no one agrees with you.

Your position is based on the laughable premise that we posess all the first copies of these manuscripts. It is so ignorant that most people can't believe that you can honestly hold such stupid opinions, but apparently you do.

Not only do you hold these stupid opinions, your ignorance convinces you that they are very clever and subtle opinions. They aren't.

So, carry on.

Only you can improve yourself, that isn't my job.

Oh, and just because you don't understand "plausibility", doesn't give you the right to lie about me.

This will all end up in AAH anyway.

Why do I bother?

 

[Craig B]

Why don't you argue about Braianache's veracity?

Because I have no cause to doubt it.

 

[dejudge]

..The Jewish Messiah Cult in the first Century was about one of their own people rising up and over-throwing the oppressors.

Apparently one of these Messiah Cults settled on "Jesus", who didn't perform as advertised. A non-flesh and blood Messiah would have been a very radical idea at that time.

You are merely speculating. There is no a shred of corroborative evidence for a 1st century Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

It is not apparent at all that Messiah cults settled on Jesus because there is no apparent evidence.

Paul said Jesus' "Messiah Phase" started after the crucifixion. That was radical enough to get him kicked out of Jerusalem by an angry mob. We don't hear of anyone proclaiming any kind of "Spiritual Messiah" before Paul.

Your statement is highly illogical. You did not hear anyone talk about Jesus of Nazareth and Paul before the 2nd century or later.

By the way, please don't give the impression that HJ was a posthumous Messiah. There is no such thing in Jewish tradition.

That is what you guys need to show: Evidence of this Mystical Messiah who was not "of the flesh" or "Under the Law".

Until then, your theory has less plausibility than the HJ idea.

Again, your statement is illogical.

The very NT itself states Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and that he was the Logos, God Creator.

There is no need to re-invent a Myth.

Myth Jesus, the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost was extremely plausible in antiquity that is precisely why the stories are still believed up to today.

 

[Brainache]

You are merely speculating. There is no a shred of corroborative evidence for a 1st century Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

It is not apparent at all that Messiah cults settled on Jesus because there is no apparent evidence.



Your statement is highly illogical. You did not hear anyone talk about Jesus of Nazareth and Paul before the 2nd century or later.

By the way, please don't give the impression that HJ was a posthumous Messiah. There is no such thing in Jewish tradition.



Again, your statement is illogical.

The very NT itself states Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and that he was the Logos, God Creator.

There is no need to re-invent a Myth.

Myth Jesus, the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost was extremely plausible in antiquity that is precisely why the stories are still believed up to today.

You don't even understand what it is you are arguing against.

This is just pitiful.

 

[Craig B]

The very NT itself states Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and that he was the Logos, God Creator.

There us no "NT" which "states" that Jesus was both virgin born and a Creator Logos. There are various disparate and divergent sources, much later collected together along with other material, and compiled into the same integrated volume.

Thus, Paul makes Jesus special from the resurrection. So he says nothing about any magic birth, and little about Jesus' life. Mark makes Jesus special from the Baptism, so he says nothing about Jesus' birth or earlier life. Matthew and Luke make Jesus special from his conception, so they have (different) stories about his birth. John makes a pre-existing Jesus special since the creation, so he says nothing about Jesus' physical birth, and calls him son of Joseph (not of a Ghost).

So you can't say "the NT" says this or that about Jesus' birth, and you can't mix sources up like that. That is why you are either grossly mistaken or, much more likely, mendaciously provocative when you refer to people who dispute your ravings as Bible Believers.

 

[maximara]

Why do you think that Paul would put everything he knew about Jesus into his business letters?

The John Frumm Cult is based around the idea of outsiders bringing material Wealth to the people.

The Jewish Messiah Cult in the first Century was about one of their own people rising up and over-throwing the oppressors.

That is not entirely correct.

"The myth of John Frum expresses, in a population statistically in the ascendant, the bringing into consciousness of the opposition existing between native interests, on the one hand, and those of the Mission and the whites generally on the other. The native analysis is directed more particularly towards the past role of the Mission, but the movement is twofold. It aims first to get rid of the totalitarian grip of Presbyterian Christianity, then to eliminate the European merchants, who are supposed to be guilty of exploitation. The aim is systematic non-co-operation, abandonment of the churches, scorn of European money. Repression alone has given rise to attempts at military organization."

(Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177)

As I have mentioned back in post 3721 of this very thread: "One of the concepts of the cult is when John Frum returns to walk among the natives he will lead his army of 5,000 to 20,000 and push out all bad things and loads of cargo would come."

Now you don't raise an army to just sit there...their ultimate purpose is to fight something. Given that the coming of John Frum means the leaving of the white it doesn;t take a genius to figure out just who John Frum's army would be fighting.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isaiah 65:17; reiterated in Revelation 21)

"But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:19)

So there is the idea in Christianity that a new Earth with wealth for the believers will come come day. So in many respects Christianity promises wealth as much as John Frum cult does--it just can't seen to make up its mind if that wealth is in this world or the next.

Also we need to remember that Vanuatu become independent from European rule on July 30, 1980 just 40 years after the first native started calling himself "John Frum". Also this rule was never all that organized as you had the British-French Condominium where in theory the French and English worked together in running the place (ok you can stop laughing )

I would argue the destruction of the Temple would not have galvanized the Christian movement as some claim because the Temple had once been destroyed (586 BCE) and then rebuilt (538-515 BCE) before. Given previous history wouldn't Jewish community figure that once things calmed down they would return and rebuild their Temple?

Remember, that the 130s is when we get external references to Gospels...even if they are brief one sentence blurbs. Well the 130s was when the Bar Kokhba revolt was happening with Simon bar Kokhba being regarded by many Jews as their promised messiah (ie Christ). The aftermath was total decimation of the Jews as a people and a nation and explains why Marcion's Bible was so intent on setting the God of the Christians as separate and superior being to the god of the Jews (ie we're not like those extremists you just defeated, Rome...our God is different).

Look at how much the Gospels promise the end time is near. Now the 130s seem to fit that more then 70 CE does especially if Christianity was still being pushed by its Jewish heritage.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for that post about John Frumm, maximara. That's something to think about during work today other than the usual, devising ways to rid humanity of my boss.

Right, no body but strangely enough, three foreskins have been recovered and promptly put on display. Go figure.

Divine regeneration.

Hey, Belz...
I have to prepare another coffee to replace the one I spilt when I read your rejoinder.

 

[Brainache]

That is not entirely correct.

"The myth of John Frum expresses, in a population statistically in the ascendant, the bringing into consciousness of the opposition existing between native interests, on the one hand, and those of the Mission and the whites generally on the other. The native analysis is directed more particularly towards the past role of the Mission, but the movement is twofold. It aims first to get rid of the totalitarian grip of Presbyterian Christianity, then to eliminate the European merchants, who are supposed to be guilty of exploitation. The aim is systematic non-co-operation, abandonment of the churches, scorn of European money. Repression alone has given rise to attempts at military organization."

(Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177)

So it's about an Outsider coming in to solve all their problems. Not one of their own descended from a great folk-hero. OK.

So it's different to the Star Prophecy that so excited the first century Jews:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-6/chapter-5.html

...Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.

This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.

Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness.

But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes;yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.

This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Looking for a candidate whose exploits might have been incorporated into later stories?

It's like the Gospel Jesus was in a "getting whipped contest" against this other Jesus bloke...

Might even be useful for you, if you can find a way to wedge a Mythman in there somewhere...

I would argue the destruction of the Temple would not have galvanized the Christian movement as some claim because the Temple had once been destroyed (586 BCE) and then rebuilt (538-515 BCE) before. Given previous history wouldn't Jewish community figure that once things calmed down they would return and rebuild their Temple?

Remember, that the 130s is when we get external references to Gospels...even if they are brief one sentence blurbs. Well the 130s was when the Bar Kokhba revolt was happening with Simon bar Kokhba being regarded by many Jews as their promised messiah (ie Christ). The aftermath was total decimation of the Jews as a people and a nation and explains why Marcion's Bible was so intent on setting the God of the Christians as separate and superior being to the god of the Jews (ie we're not like those extremists you just defeated, Rome...our God is different).

Look at how much the Gospels promise the end time is near. Now the 130s seem to fit that more then 70 CE does especially if Christianity was still being pushed by its Jewish heritage.

No they were galvanised a hell of a lot more before the the fall of the Temple by people like the Roman Governor Florus.

Bar Kochba was the "Son Of The Star". He was the less successful sequel, not the main event. Here's a tip: If the first one was a flop, don't make a sequel, it'll never work...