As for the NT documents, it is most reasonable and logical to believe they were written before AD 70 since almost every one of them mentions the soon coming judgment and not one of them mentions the already destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which we know from history happened in AD 70. That omission alone is central to the NT teachings, primarily the Olivet Discourse spoken of in Matthew Mark and Luke and also Revelation and also elaborated upon by Paul, Peter, James and John.
1. You say: "As for the NT documents, it is most reasonable and logical to believe ....." WAIT! Where do the original New Testament writings in Keone Greek exist at this time?
"At this time?" Do you mean today or do you mean "at that time" (1st-century)?
I am not interested in your wishful thinking, opinions, and hearsay, understood? I am only interested in ABSOLUTES with direct historical citing from the original writings of ALL chapters of the New Testament, do you understand?
Do you understand that very few original papyrus documents exist from the 1st-century? Do you understand the persecution of the early church? Do you understand that most of these originals were written to specific churches and copied for other churches? Do you understand how long it would take for the gospel message to spread, yet Paul and others report that the word of God
was being preached throughout the world and to the ends of the earth,
to all creation. That was Paul, speaking in the 1st-century. History tells us he died by the hand of Nero around AD 64-68.
I'm not interested in your fantasy feelings either. Show me absolute historical evidence that the originals did not exist during the 1st-century. Also, show me from the hundreds of time statements in the NT that any of them are speaking of the already destroyed temple and city. Do you know what the OT centred around? It centred around temple worship and an OT economy. It centred around the coming Messiah. Give me instances in the NT of the already passed OT rituals and temple worship - just one. Do you understand the importance of the temple and city to these OT people and these Jewish writers (for the most part) fail to mention what would be the most important event in their history? I think you are ignorant of all these factors. A.T. Roberson, had this to say about AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem,
"ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark."
I've read his book and seen the evidence. Have you?
Where does the original writings exist to make your statements a reality?
Show me other original writings that exist from that period. They are few and far between. What is amazing though is the sheer number of early copies. Do you know why that is important? I bet you don't.
Are you going to ignore all ancient history in which the original documents are not available?
2. You say: " ... since almost every one of them mentions the soon coming judgment ..." Again, where do these original Keone Greek New Testament writings exist to support your discourse?
Where do the earliest documents we have available exist to support your discourse?
I have a far more reasonable position than you do, yet your bias thinks otherwise. Thus, I suggest you present the proof for your claim which you have not so artfully avoided. Where is your evidence for the Mithras documents dates and how many were found?
I don't mind this discussion regarding the NT though since I have been studying it for years and think you are ignorant of the evidence.
To use the term "soon" like you did, and as Jesus proffered to many in the time period He was on earth, biblically speaking,"SOON" MEANT IN HIS GENERATION!
Yes, He spoke of it happening before that generation He came to was over. Do you know how long a generation was and how long after His death the temple and city were destroyed?
It was to be in the generation of the living that Jesus was associated with (Matthew 16: 27, 28) and not 1987 years later!
Yes, I agree 100%, so what is your point?
(Mark 13:26-30) Since Jesus has not returned, let alone in the generation that He said he was 1987 years ago, this proposition alone makes me question if Jesus was in fact real! What do you say without any ungodly Satanic spin doctoring that I will call you on, get it?
That is because you try to interpret passages like Matthew 24:3 in terms of the end of the world, not the end of the age. What age was Jesus speaking of in
Matthew 24:3?
Also, when Jesus said in
Matthew 5:17-18 that not one letter of the law of Moses would pass until all was accomplished what did He mean?
Also,
Matthew 16:27-18, in which Jesus is speaking to His disciples says,
"some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” what does He MEAN? And what does He mean when He said in verse 27, " the Son of Man is going to
come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."
Do you understand how the Father came in judgment in the OT??? I bet you have no clue. Why is that important? Because Jesus said He would come in like manner. How did His Father come in glory and judgment in the OT? I bet you have no clue. Prove me wrong.
As for the other documentation that you want from me, you have your homework cut out for you in showing me the above required information so as for you to stand upon firm ground, and not upon quicksand from information from some insidious apologetic web site, understand?
You made the claim about Mithras. Axiom - He who makes a claim bears the burden of proving it.
