Why the argument for 70 AD as for the terminus a quo for the writing of the Gospel of Mark isn't sustainable

Many scholars date Mark as the earliest Gospel after 70 AD because in it Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, which took place at that date. They then date the other Gospels later accordingly,usually arbitrarily placing them ten years apart. The underlying argument is, of course, a naturalistic one, namely that since no one can really predict the future, Jesus couldn't have done so either, and therefore Mark or somebody must have made that up later and placed it on Jesus' lips. This is illustrative of the  larger fact that in many cases our acceptance or rejection of Christianity's supernatural claims precedes rather than follows from our scholarly work. We judge what we believe could have happened on the basis of our our own experience or lack of experience of the spiritual realities the Bible describes. In this case however there are a number of problems that go beyond that basic nature/supernatural divide:

(1) Even granting a naturalistic point of view, people sometimes do as it were, "see the writing on the wall," and predict things that actually happen.

(2) Josephus reports people besides Jesus making the prediction and even says the belief that such an event was coming was commonly held beforehand.

(3) The idea that the Temple will pass away lies at the root of the New Testament idea that the Temple has now been replaced by the Body of Christ, an idea that is present in New Testament books dated before 70.

(4) It is an idea that is multiply attested as being one that Jesus taught, not only in Mark 13:2, but in passages such as the one where Jesus says "destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days" (which is multiply attested as well), and in the following passage which is unique to Luke in which Jesus predicts the overthrow of Jerusalem itself:

• "As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, 'If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.'" (19:41-44)

The bottom line is that the argument that the 70 AD date for the terminus a quo for the writing of the Gospel of Mark just isn't sustainable, just isn't valid. Too many things going on there.