Dating the NT Books

[Arthur81]

HOW CAN YOU HAVE A REBORN ISRAEL WITH A 3RD TEMPLE CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING? THE IDEA OF A 3RD TEMPLE MUST BE READ INTO THE BIBLE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT STATED SO.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matt 21:43 KJV)

There is no hint that the kingdom would be given back to them in the future. You must read that into the verse.

"He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid." (Luke 20:16 KJV)

The chief priests and the scribes tried to capture Jesus for they knew he spoke this of them, the Jews.

"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father....But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (John 4:21, 23 KJV)

The days of God's people worshipping him in a literal temple is over, past, done away with!

"And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Mark 13:2 KJV)

To find a 3rd temple after this rather final wording must be read into the passage.

"And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him." (John 12:14-16 KJV)

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." (Acts 2:30-35 KJV)

Christ reigning on David's the throne ruling His people, the assembly of God, began in the 1st century; and this is fulfilling the prophecy of David. He MUST rule to "make they foes they footstool"

David ruled from a literal, physical throne over God's people Israel in the OT; Jesus the Messiah rules spiritually over His people Israel today, Israel being the elect Jews and elect Gentiles.

"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:14-16 RSV) *Those born again, all of them Jew and Gentile are now Israel!

I CANNOT ACCEPT THE IDEA, AFTER CHRIST DIED TO ESTABLISH THE "NEW COVENANT", THAT HE'D REVERT BACK TO THE "OLD COVENANT" THROUGH MOSES! ADDING SACRIFICES ALSO, I FIND THAT REPUGNANT TO MY SPIRITUAL NATURE.

 

[Zao is life]

The men writing the NT books did not put dates on them. Some contain enough in the body of text that a date of writing can be confidently accepted. Others have quite large variance in scholar's ideas of the date of writing.

If the NT writers did not give a date, then there must be some key in the NT that alerts us to some idea of the dates. I think the question of where in the NT is it even hinted at that the Temple had been destroyed? I know of nowhere, and Paul and John write as if the Temple still exists as they write. It is not reasonable to think the NT is silent on the destruction of the Temple, which was so foundational to Israel, if it had already happened. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Temple of Jerusalem, either of two temples that were the centre of worship and national identity in ancient Israel." Temple of Jerusalem | Description, History, & Significance

In prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Matt 23, Mark 13 & Luke 21; Jesus said ALL the signs would take place within the time of that generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

Again, is there anywhere in the NT texts that indicate that the Temple had been destroyed at the time of their writing? I know of none!

In Daniel 9, the prophecy of 490 years certainly concludes before 70 AD, and to separate the 70th week from the 69th week and insert over 2500 years is pure nonsense. The "abomination of desolation" certainly was in reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What about Paul's writing:

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2Thess 2:4 KJV)

Yes, Paul has referred elsewhere to the believers, the body of Christ as the "temple of God" in a figurative sense. But where would the man of sin "sit" in a real way in the body of Christ. Those of Paul's day of course would be thinking of the literal Temple in Jerusalem. So the Temple then existed.

Revelation refers to the Temple as existing in Rev. 11:1-2 and even the liberal annotated study Bibles admit that indicates the Temple existed when that was written. John records the timing of Revelation in Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10: "things which shortly must be done" and "the time is at hand".

The major part of Revelation in symbols predicts the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish religion; then it likewise shows the gradual fall of the Roman Empire. These prophecies were written before 70 AD, so they were true Holy Spirit inspired prophecies. This refers to the destruction of the Temple and the Roman Empire alone.

BUT THE SECOND COMING, GENERAL RESURRECTION AND GENERAL JUDGMENT ARE STILL IN OUR FUTURE, AS PROPHESIED IN REVELATION 20.

Why do we accept man's reasoning on these timings when the Bible clearly gives it to us? Some 'scholars' date a few NT books as late as 180 AD.

Acts 21
28 crying out, Men, Israelites, help! This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people and the Law and this place. And even he brought Greeks into the temple and has polluted this holy place.

Acts 28
16 And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.

29 And he having said these words, the Jews departed, having much discussion amongst themselves.
30 And Paul remained two years in his own hired house. And he welcomed all who came in to him,
31 proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom, and without hindrance.

The temple was still standing when Acts closed.

A Wikipedia article states:

1 Clement, a letter written by the Roman bishop Clement of Rome around the year 90, reports this about Paul:

By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
— Lightfoot 1890, p. 274, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 5:5–6

So if Clement wrote in A.D 90 about Paul's death, then Paul could not possibly have written any epistles after A.D 90. Somewhat before that, in fact.

Personally when I read all the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, I always have seen the exact same 'Pauline stamp' in his arguments and the words he chooses, the way he words the things he says, and the way he structures his arguments and his teaching. I see the exact same Pauline stamp in Hebrews also.​

I also see different 'stamps' in the other books.

Matthew's Gospel

I became aware (thanks to scholars) how Matthew is divided carefully into 7 sections each ending with words similar to "when Jesus had finished these sayings".

And maybe it's just me but when I read Matthew's gospel I pick up that whoever wrote it (or dictated it to whoever wrote it, whatever the case may be) was definitely an eye witness. I've also seen (clearly) how in each of those 7 sections, Matthew traces the life of Jesus (after the birth narrative) from the very beginning of his ministry through each stage, until He sets His face toward Jerusalem for His final trip to Jerusalem.
​

Luke's Gospel

Luke definitely seems to me to be unsure at times where Jesus was when He said certain things, and it makes sense, because Luke was not himself an eyewitness, and says so. He went around collecting information from various eyewitnesses. So there are discrepancies that pop up between Luke and Matthew time and again, like this:

Big tithes and no mercy:

Luke 11:42-46 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:23-28 (in the temple in Jerusalem).

Tombs of the prophets:

Luke 11:47-52 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:29-36 (in the temple in Jerusalem).

Weeping over Jerusalem:

Luke 13:34-35 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:37-39 (in the temple in Jerusalem)

The end of the Age and the return of Christ:

Luke 17:22-37 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 24:9-42 (Mount of Olives).

I question what sort of very long life the authors of the gospels and epistles would have needed to live if any of those books were written as late as the Revelation, and were written by one of the other apostles. They could not all have lived as long as John.

So just for me personally, because of the things I've said above (and I've actually shortened what I was saying about Matthew and Paul, etc), and also because of what you pointed out about the destruction of the temple not being mentioned in any epistle or in the book of Acts, I don't buy the 'evidence' put forward by scholars about 'later dates' of some of those epistles, and about 'various authors' being involved in some of those epistles, etc.

I always find internal evidence for 'who wrote what' when I read - and I see it all over - the personal style and method used by each author being consistent throughout each book, like the stamp of the author.

I have absolutely no problem with believing the traditional identification of authors of the various books of the New Testament and their approximate dates of writing.​

In prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Matt 23, Mark 13 & Luke 21; Jesus said ALL the signs would take place within the time of that generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

It's murky water. The study of where Jesus was when He spoke about the coming destruction of the temple and what He said afterwards on the Mount of Olives is way too long a subject to mix into the subject of when the books were written (for me, not saying you had no right to do that). The two subjects each need to be dealt with individually. So I'll sorthen this to say that I don't agree on either what you are ascribing the signs to, or on what you assume Jesus meant by "this generation" when He was giving those signs.​

Why do we accept man's reasoning on these timings when the Bible clearly gives it to us? Some 'scholars' date a few NT books as late as 180 AD.

Why do we disagree on what the Bible clearly gives to us? would be a better question to ask, IMO, because I don't believe that what you say above about the rest is a correct interpretation of the scriptures that are plainly written, at all.​

 

[Arthur81]

Acts 21
28 crying out, Men, Israelites, help! This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people and the Law and this place. And even he brought Greeks into the temple and has polluted this holy place.

Acts 28
16 And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.

29 And he having said these words, the Jews departed, having much discussion amongst themselves.
30 And Paul remained two years in his own hired house. And he welcomed all who came in to him,
31 proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom, and without hindrance.

The temple was still standing when Acts closed.

A Wikipedia article states:

1 Clement, a letter written by the Roman bishop Clement of Rome around the year 90, reports this about Paul:

By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
— Lightfoot 1890, p. 274, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 5:5–6

So if Clement wrote in A.D 90 about Paul's death, then Paul could not possibly have written any epistles after A.D 90. Somewhat before that, in fact.

Personally when I read all the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, I always have seen the exact same 'Pauline stamp' in his arguments and the words he chooses, the way he words the things he says, and the way he structures his arguments and his teaching. I see the exact same Pauline stamp in Hebrews also.​

I also see different 'stamps' in the other books.

Matthew's Gospel

I became aware (thanks to scholars) how Matthew is divided carefully into 7 sections each ending with words similar to "when Jesus had finished these sayings".

And maybe it's just me but when I read Matthew's gospel I pick up that whoever wrote it (or dictated it to whoever wrote it, whatever the case may be) was definitely an eye witness. I've also seen (clearly) how in each of those 7 sections, Matthew traces the life of Jesus (after the birth narrative) from the very beginning of his ministry through each stage, until He sets His face toward Jerusalem for His final trip to Jerusalem.
​

Luke's Gospel

Luke definitely seems to me to be unsure at times where Jesus was when He said certain things, and it makes sense, because Luke was not himself an eyewitness, and says so. He went around collecting information from various eyewitnesses. So there are discrepancies that pop up between Luke and Matthew time and again, like this:

Big tithes and no mercy:

Luke 11:42-46 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:23-28 (in the temple in Jerusalem).

Tombs of the prophets:

Luke 11:47-52 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:29-36 (in the temple in Jerusalem).

Weeping over Jerusalem:

Luke 13:34-35 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 23:37-39 (in the temple in Jerusalem)

The end of the Age and the return of Christ:

Luke 17:22-37 (before arriving in Jerusalem) | Matthew 24:9-42 (Mount of Olives).

I question what sort of very long life the authors of the gospels and epistles would have needed to live if any of those books were written as late as the Revelation, and were written by one of the other apostles. They could not all have lived as long as John.

So just for me personally, because of the things I've said above (and I've actually shortened what I was saying about Matthew and Paul, etc), and also because of what you pointed out about the destruction of the temple not being mentioned in any epistle or in the book of Acts, I don't buy the 'evidence' put forward by scholars about 'later dates' of some of those epistles, and about 'various authors' being involved in some of those epistles, etc.

I always find internal evidence for 'who wrote what' when I read - and I see it all over - the personal style and method used by each author being consistent throughout each book, like the stamp of the author.

I have absolutely no problem with believing the traditional identification of authors of the various books of the New Testament and their approximate dates of writing.

It's murky water. The study of where Jesus was when He spoke about the coming destruction of the temple and what He said afterwards on the Mount of Olives is way too long a subject to mix into the subject of when the books were written (for me, not saying you had no right to do that). The two subjects each need to be dealt with individually. So I'll sorthen this to say that I don't agree on either what you are ascribing the signs to, or on what you assume Jesus meant by "this generation" when He was giving those signs.

Why do we disagree on what the Bible clearly gives to us? would be a better question to ask, IMO, because I don't believe that what you say above about the rest is a correct interpretation of the scriptures that are plainly written, at all.​

Once you wrote "So there are discrepancies that pop up between Luke and Matthew time and again, like this:" I do not now pay any attention to anything you wrote or will write. There are NO discrepancies in the Holy Spirit inspired men's writings, between books or otherwise.

 

[Zao is life]

Once you wrote "So there are discrepancies that pop up between Luke and Matthew time and again, like this:" I do not now pay any attention to anything you wrote or will write. There are NO discrepancies in the Holy Spirit inspired men's writings, between books or otherwise.

I did not say the books are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor have I ever believed they are not inspired or even for one minute questioned in my mind whether or not they are inspired.

But okay. The synoptic gospels never disagree on where Jesus was when He said certain things, or on anything. Alright.

Thank you for being honest. Now I won't have to pay attention to anything you say ever again either.​

 

[Ronald Nolette]

To finish the transgression:
(rebellion will be stopped) REB
(BDB - rebellion against individuals, nation or God)
(finish or restrain) ASV marg.
"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matt 1:21 NRSV)
"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1John 3:8 KJV)
"So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. (Rom 6:11-12 NRSV)

This transgression is in the singular so it is one particular singular sin that needs to cease.

Hosea 5:15
I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

Matthew 23:36-39

King James Version

​

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The singular offense is Israel as a nation rejecting Her Messiah.

To make an end of sin:
(put an end to sin)NRSV
"for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the world was created. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the climax of history to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:26 REB)

So your contention is Israel no longer sins?

To bring in everlasting righteousness:

So Israel is now righteous?

Remember this is for Daniels people and the city of jerusalem.

To anoint the most Holy:

When did Israel pour out anointing oil on either , the Holy of Holies or the Lord jesus as its Messiah?

To seal up the vision & prophecy:

So you believe the prophecies of Revelation were all fulfilled by the time of Jesus death and resurrection and ascension? Historic proof please.

You show you are proficient in using a concordance and pasting verses that do not pertain to the prophecy but you have failed to actually prove any of the 70th week events have taken place. Just to show what takes place in the seventieth week:

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

we see Jesus killed after 483 years, but now show what the prince of the romans who destroyed the sanctuary makes a covenant with the nation (ethnos) of Israel.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I CANNOT ACCEPT THE IDEA, AFTER CHRIST DIED TO ESTABLISH THE "NEW COVENANT", THAT HE'D REVERT BACK TO THE "OLD COVENANT" THROUGH MOSES! ADDING SACRIFICES ALSO, I FIND THAT REPUGNANT TO MY SPIRITUAL NATURE.

Well then your spiritual nature has a problem!

fist off, nowhere does it say that goid wsill accept the sacrifices in th etemple once it is rebuilt. Scripture simply says it will be rebuilt.

Second off if the temple will not be rebuilt and (I assume) you believe we the church are now the temple of God then:

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

So is it your contention that this man of sin will be inside believers ??????

 

[Arthur81]

See my interpretation fully on the 70 week thread...

 

[Ronald Nolette]

See my interpretation fully on the 70 week thread...

I do not need to see "your interpretation" of the 70 th week. I have Gods Word and need not your opinion. Especially as it is so contrary to the written word of God.