'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1
Here is what I said in the OP: - ME
I am well aware of what you said in t[h]e OP (seeing as I responded to it). You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right. It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.
What I am attempting, and he nor you will cooperate, is to provide the evidence, piece by piece, and let him/you present the counter-evidence/argument and see whose position is more reasonable regarding the facts, what we know, the data and evidence available. My claim is that it would be my position, not his or yours that is reasonable and logical and corresponds to the data available.
How am I being dishonest in complying with what I stated? The evidence cannot be presented in one post, and I have presented some of it that
has not been disputed.
For those who have contended, there is no evidence I am willing to dispute this, and I have. If you question my factual statements then present contrary evidence.
What evidence do we have available? We have over 24,000 NT manuscripts - FACT.
We have over 5,000 gospel accounts - FACT.
Contained in many of these manuscripts are prophecies concerning Jerusalem and its destruction - FACT.
We have documents/scrolls/documents other than the OT itself (Dead Sea Scrolls), some of which contain OT writings, such as Daniel and Isaiah - FACT.
Some of these OT documents have references to the destruction of Jerusalem also - FACT.
We have the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70 - FACT.
We have all kinds of NT references to a coming judgment and to an OT relevant audience of address and time frame - FACT.
We have numerous references to a still existence city, temple, and ritual system of worship, which revolves around a temple, a priesthood, and animal sacrifices to atone for sin - FACT.
We have early church fathers who record verses and passages from the Bible - FACT.
After AD 70, none of this Mosaic system of worship is functional - FACT.
After AD 70 the Mosaic Law can no longer be followed as prescribed - FACT.
That covenant relationship is no longer operational as prescribed - FACT.
The predictions of the Messiah was to an OT people - FACT.
There are no EARLY writings that describe the NT gospels and epistles, or their prophecies, as written in AFTER the fact - FACT, to my knowledge and that of others. Please, present counter-arguments to dispute this factual claim.
The whole of the NT is concerned about a SOON, coming judgment - FACT.
There is NEVER a reference to an already destroyed city nor temple - FACT.
It is reasonable to believe, based on these off-hand points, plus many more, that the NT writings are finished before AD 70.
Then, based on the Olivet Discourse, I am willing to demonstrate that it applies primarily to these 1st-century people as the audience of address and to the time frame of the prophecies. Dispute it if you can?
I asked you a specific question concerning what you believe the dating game of the NT is largely based upon (what it hinges on). So far, no answer.
I asked you to present counter evidence that what I claim about the prophecies being written before the AD 70 event is NOT most reasonable to believe. So far all I got was on the book of Daniel, and I have asked you to present more of your "evidence." So far, no answer.
I asked you what these NT writers had to gain by promoting something that you claim they knew was untrue? So far, no answer.
I asked you how reasonable it is that the writers would manufacture a "Story" that so much would have to be manufactured after the event and taking these soon judgments and prophecies out of the text would make no sense of the text. It would leave very little of the NT, IMO, although I have not subtracted the prophecy and warnings from the text to find out how much. So far, no answer.
So, I invite you to present your evidence and your argument as being the more reasonable.