Let's see about the Arch of Titus

[YoursTrue]

Yes. That’s because there is evidence of this from different sources that corroborate one another.

OK, so the Jews were in Jerusalem in the first century, you agree. And then were harshly pushed out and the rebellion crushed.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Jewish Rebellion was put down finally in 73-74 AD, before the probable date that St Luke's Gospel was written:

The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[5] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[6]

The author is not named in either volume.[8] According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[9] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31,[15] Acts 22:6–21,[16] and Acts 26:9–23)[17] with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).[18][19] The author of the Gospel of Luke clearly admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[20] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[21]

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[22] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[11]

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

What could be easier than for the author to put those words into the mouth of Jesus, to make it look like a prophecy?

Let's look at this question: did Christians exist at the time of the Jewish rebellion and the crushing of those that were left in Jerusalem. Not sure if those in Jerusalem at the time were mostly Jews, but I'll try to look at that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, I have heard 'dooms-day' sayers talk like this.

Not sure what you mean by dooms-day.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Jewish Rebellion was put down finally in 73-74 AD, before the probable date that St Luke's Gospel was written:

The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[5] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[6]

The author is not named in either volume.[8] According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[9] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31,[15] Acts 22:6–21,[16] and Acts 26:9–23)[17] with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).[18][19] The author of the Gospel of Luke clearly admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[20] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[21]

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[22] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[11]

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

What could be easier than for the author to put those words into the mouth of Jesus, to make it look like a prophecy?

I find it interesting that Christians began in that time period. That the temple itself was rendered as rubble by the Romans.

 

[exchemist]

OK, so the Jews were in Jerusalem in the first century, you agree. And then were harshly pushed out and the rebellion crushed.

Judaea was a Roman colony, part of the Roman Empire, in the 1st century AD, with one of the puppet monarchies that the Romans were intelligent enough to leave in place (Herod being one of them).

The Jews were not "pushed out" as such, since Judaea continued to have a Jewish population after it was over, but there was a wave of Jewish diaspora resulting from it. There was already a considerable Jewish diaspora within the eastern part of the Roman Empire, as a result of commerce and so on, before then. Which is how it is that St. Paul, a Jew, came from Tarsus in Asia Minor - the family business was making tents, I gather.

You can read about the First Jewish-Roman War here: First Jewish–Roman War - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

I find it interesting that Christians began in that time period. That the temple itself was rendered as rubble by the Romans.

That's a good point. I have not looked it up but I can imagine that the defeat of the revolt, and the punishments meted out afterwards, could have caused a number of the proto-Christians to flee, thereby helping the new religion to spread. More reading needed, evidently........

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not sure what you mean by doom's-day.

"The day is coming soonwhen you will be called for your degressions and you will be not be raised from dead or God will send you to eternal hell."
"A doomsday cult is a cult that believes in apocalypticism and millenarianism, including both those that predict disaster and those that attempt to destroy the entire universe."
Doomsday cult - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

But Rome killed Jews only, please:

" The followers* of Jesus of Nazareth also survived the city's destruction. They spread his teachings across the Roman Empire, giving rise to the new religion of Christianity.[10] "
Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) - Wikipedia
Why, please?
Weren't they followers of Hellenist-Pauline-Christianity, and not of Yeshua exactly, please? Right?

So the Romans sided with the Pauline-Christianity as it supported Hellenism and the true followers of Yeshua's teachings suffered as did the rest of the Judaism people, please.
Is it correct, please? Right?

Regards