"20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body." John 20-21.
Please quote the verses regarding Jesus foretelling his death and resurrection.
You....you just quoted one. Because the fact of the matter is the temple was destroyed in 70 AD and has not been rebuilt, not in 3 days, not in 30 days, not in 300 years. The reason why John, the last of the gospels to be written, said that the temple was his body is that the early Christians did not believe that. They believed that Jesus was going to return very quickly to rebuild the temple, kick Roman ass, and rule the world. That's why they have Jesus saying stuff like "Some of you standing here will not taste death until the kingdom of heaven comes with power" and shit. But that didn't happen, and by the time John was written, it was clear it wouldn't happen, so everything got reframed.
Also, in the gospel of Matthew, almost everything Jesus says is a lie. Everything in the first 16 chapters is lies, it's only in the last verses of chapter 16 that he decides to tell anyone any truth, then starting in chapter 17 he tells some people the truth while still lying to everyone else. Each gospel represents an entirely different school of first (and early second) century Christianity, and is colored by that fact. The author of Mark, the first gospel, really believed that the destruction of the temple, which he had just witnessed, meant that the time of the messiah was at hand. That's why his gospel ends abruptly with the tomb being found empty, and nothing is said about the resurrected Jesus (everything after 16:9 was added later): the writer believed that Jesus was going to show up and start fucking people up, and so there was no need to write about it. Luke and Matthew were written a little later. Matthew was a gnostic gospel and didn't believe in following the teachings of Jesus or of the Jewish law, just knowing him. The way to be saved, according to the author, was to know Jesus in a deep mystical sense, not to
do anything. Doing was a distraction from knowing.
Luke's author came from a different school of thought, that the important thing was making it sound true, tying it to reality. Matthew's author didn't care about tying it to reality; when he says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets...." in the first few chapters, he's deliberately lying about what the prophets said to make you throw up your hands in disgust and walk away. Luke's author, on the other hand, tells you he's a historian. He works hard to establish that he's spent a lot of time and energy researching and interviewing people. He makes a point of dropping names of people and places. His religion is a lot like yours, it's based largely on convincing people that it's real. And as with any issue in life, you can find this perfectly elucidated on star trek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zFOdQYmTrkThe religion you created, and that the author of Luke created, is real in your minds. And you are trying to convince others it is real; you are the dreamer and the dream.
Topic: Blown away