You string together a tantalizing aray of ideas, but you don't develop them here.
You need to make complete propostions which can then be either accepted or denied. Just to throw a bucnh of ideas out and hope that we can intuit your way of connecting the dots is an unreasonable expection on your part. (For the record, I have been reading your posts, and no, they don't answer the questions your post above raises).
For example, what is meant by "3 additional rebellions"? I am unaware of any discusssion of rebellions or their significance in this thread.
Also, what is meant by the rebellion in 70AD being associated with Messiah as lamb and lion? I cannot follow your course of thought.
How does the Apostolic expectation of the Messianic kingdom in 33 AD have anything to do with our discussion?
What does, "from the perspective of Christians, it makes perfect sense and ties to the NT witness itself", mean?
I think you should summarize your thoughts into a single, cohesive, sensible model and maybe then you will persuade someone by your evidence and conclusions, but maybe not. However, it seems to me you owe it to yourself to give your ideas a more crystalline form, so in any event you can either be seen as valid or not on the merits of the entirety of your argument.
It's a highly tortured theory
Firstly: Jews believed in 400 years of no prophets - falsified on many levels
Those that can be said to have believed that Malachi was the last prophet would not have said "Okay, that was 400 years ago, we're now back in a time of prophecy". It's a really odd idea that has some Protestants rejecting a number of books based on a twisting of Jewish ideas on final prophecy, interloping a 400 year period into that Jewish idea because those Protestants accept John the Baptist. This is probably the most tortured idea of them.
Secondly there are many Jews who believed in further prophecies given those same Jews included books in their Bible such as Tobit and Judith in the Septuagint. To then claim never to have seen this evidence is incredible.
It's further evidenced (in the NT) that prophecies existed before John the Baptist's ministry, and that the temple was still being used.
Thirdly, it's based on a strained belief in what a prophecy is, This has been discredited. Prophecy does not solely reside within the books terms 'prophetic'.
Fourthly, it's a strange twisting on Wisdom's prophecies by claiming it says that Jesus won't die even though the same terms are used in one of the Psalms.
Fifthly, based on now discredited claims that certain witnesses agree with the canon. Although the claims are repeated over and over again they're still shown to be false.
It's been shown that using Justin Martyr in his dialogue with a Jew was a classic case of taking him out of context. Justin Martyr doesn't refer to the 'rejected' books because he says he's debating someone who doesn't accept them. He notes this specifically.
Sixthly, based on another 'rule' selectively applied. The rule states that only books that claim within themselves to be inspired are inspired. Again this would collapse due to accepted books don't meet this rule, and rejected books do.
These six problems still remain. After many posts all I see now are simply claims that some argument has been won over some time ago.
