When Was the NT Written and By Who?

[JTC]

I was going to make this part of the latest thread on the KJV Bible, but decided it should have it's own thread. 

 

 I've become concerned over when the various books in the NT were written, and by who. From what I'm finding out, the NT wasn't even written until 200 or 300 AD, and maybe later. The Early Christians were so convinced Jesus was coming back very soon, and didn't see a real need to write down what the apostles had taught them. Another problem is so many of the original Christians who heard the original apostles were put to death. So it wasn't until Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, that the NT was put together. From what I'm hearing, the Epistles are probably the oldest writings in the NT, and Mark was probably the first Gospel to be written.

 

I was very dismayed to learn John's Gospel was probably written last, and it was done to support what had now become the Roman Catholic Church. And pretty much until we reach the 1500's and Martin Luther, the RCC was Christianity. Although I think there was a Eastern Christianity, and the Roman Christianity is what most of us consider Catholicism. I was further dismayed to learn that even in Luther's day, many Priests never read the NT. It's actually quite a mess, and it get's worse from then to now.

 

Some of you know I live in 1 of the super Storm Sandy disaster areas. Ever since last year I'm become what you might call an apocalyptic Christian. I would love to say Sandy is the only reason for this, but if I did, I'd be lying. Before Sandy Katrina devastated New Orleans. Recently the Philippines were ransacked by a Typhoon the likes of which they had never seen before, and early an Earthquake hit them. Japan has also been hit with many disasters in the past 2 years. And I heard on last night's News that Illinois and Indiana saw 60 tornadoes this past weekend. All this is making me take a closer look at the Bible because the predictions in it are coming true.

 

So I'm going to get to the point. Many people from my generation left the Catholic church back around 45 years ago, and many of you younger folks have left the protestant churches. I've been taking a new look at Catholicism because when I left it, 45 years ago, I knew next to nothing about what they were teaching. They didn't like their members to read the Bible back then, and I'm a real Bible stickler. I'm happy to see the RCC now teaches salvation comes as a gift from God, through faith in Jesus, but sins do matter. This is what the Bible teaches. To die with unrepented sins in your life will have negative consequences. But that's not the biggest issue. Prior to Martin Luther Christianity and Catholicism were one and the same thing. By the RCC admitting salvation comes through grace and faith takes away a lot of their control, and they do relish their control. So what do they have that would make a person go back to them?

 

I find only 1 thing, and the problem is I find it in only 1 place in the Bible. If I'm wrong on this, I want book, chapter, and verse. This shocked me when it was pointed out to me, and I denied it to myself for over 10 years. The RCC believes that we must partake of the literal body and Blood of Jesus to get to Heaven. They maintain that only their priests have the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. And proof of this idea is only found in John's Gospel. In the other 3 Gospels Jesus says we should come together and break bread and share it as a remembrance of Him and the fact that He freely died for our sins. But in John's Gospel Jesus says His body is real food and His blood is real drink.

 

With some 3000 protestant denominations, most of which fight over petty matters I came to trust only 1 preacher. He's dead almost 10 years, but he used to say, as the Bible does, that all matters must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. So this doctrine that Jesus body and blood is real food and drink, should be in at least 2 places of the Bible, but I only find it in John's Gospel. I think this is a problem that dwarfs which translation you prefer. So is John's Gospel wrong about this, or are all us Protestants wrong?  I think we can no longer pretend this problem doesn't exist, just like we have to stop pretending our sins don't matter to God.

 

(somehow I was logged out and lost part of this. But this is most of it)

[Guest man]

New Testament

 

Author Date Written (A.D)

 

Matthew Matthew 60's

 

Mark John Mark late 50's early 60's

 

Luke Luke 60

 

John John late 80's early 90's

 

Acts Luke 61

 

Romans Paul 55

 

1 Corinthians Paul 54

 

2 Corinthians Paul 55

 

Galatians Paul 49

 

Ephesians Paul 60

 

Philippians Paul 61

 

Colossians Paul 60

 

1 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51

 

2 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51

 

1 Timothy Paul 62

 

2 Timothy Paul 63

 

Titus Paul 62

 

Philemon Paul 60

 

Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's

 

James James, half brother of Jesus 40's or 50's

 

1 Peter Peter 63

 

2 Peter Peter 63 - 64

 

1 John John late 80's early 90's

 

2 John John late 80's early 90's

 

3 John John late 80's early 90's

 

Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's

 

Revelation John late 80's early 90's

[Guest shiloh357]

I've become concerned over when the various books in the NT were written, and by who. From what I'm finding out, the NT wasn't even written until 200 or 300 AD, and maybe later.

 

Actually the sources that make that claim are mistaken.   First of all Paul quotes directly from the book of Luke in I Tim. 5:18. He quotes from Luke 10:7.  Luke based his Gospel on being able to interview eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry. 

 

Furthermore, the Gospels contain geogrphic and architectural information about the landscape of Jerusalem that a person living 200 -300 years later would not have known about due to the complete destruction of the city in 70 AD.  For example, John mentions the pool of Bethesda and its five collonades.  Those five collonades were not discovered until they were uncovered by modern archeology.   The inn mentioned in the story of the good Samaritan was a real inn along the Jericho road and has been found.

 

Even obscure and lesser known cultural traditions like the banquet and Abraham's bosom are things that a person living hundreds of years after the fact simply would not have been included in the text.

 

 

So this doctrine that Jesus body and blood is real food and drink, should be in at least 2 places of the Bible, but I only find it in John's Gospel. I think this is a problem that dwarfs which translation you prefer. So is John's Gospel wrong about this, or are all us Protestants wrong? 

 

Which part of John's Gospel are you referring to?  I think I know, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.  Can you cite the passage in John that supports the notion that the body and blood of Jesus is real food and drink?

[JTC]

Yeah shiloh, most of it is in ch 6 of John's Gospel. Specifically verse 54. Later on in ch 6 Jesus admits this is a hard teaching, and many can't accept. (I'm using the NJKV right now) But I don't think the translation matters that much. Although I haven't checked any Catholic translations. If this was only in Catholic translations it would be easier to ignore it.

 

I knew next to nothing about Catholicism when I walked away, at 18. And I didn't even know about this belief that the priest is transforming the host and wine into literal flesh and blood until 2000. I've been ignoring it since then because I have quite a few problems with Catholic dogma.

 

I didn't expect many of you to even discuss this with me because most of you always disagree with me. I'm trying to find the truth before there's no time left to find it. Especially with the Islam threat, we who claim the Bible is true had better get ourselves in 1 mind. That's enough for now.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Yeah shiloh, most of it is in ch 6 of John's Gospel. Specifically verse 54. Later on in ch 6 Jesus admits this is a hard teaching, and many can't accept. (I'm using the NJKV right now) But I don't think the translation matters that much. Although I haven't checked any Catholic translations. If this was only in Catholic translations it would be easier to ignore it.

 

I knew next to nothing about Catholicism when I walked away, at 18. And I didn't even know about this belief that the priest is transforming the host and wine into literal flesh and blood until 2000. I've been ignoring it since then because I have quite a few problems with Catholic dogma.

 

I didn't expect many of you to even discuss this with me because most of you always disagree with me. I'm trying to find the truth before there's no time left to find it. Especially with the Islam threat, we who claim the Bible is true had better get ourselves in 1 mind. That's enough for now.

Okay, John 6: 54.   Let's look at that verse in its surrounding context:

 

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Joh 6:44-58

 

So this is a discussion where Jesus is using food and drink as a metaphor for our partaking of HIm in order to gain eternal life.  The RCC uses this, particularly verse 24 as he basis for their theology of the Eucharist what most of us call "communion."  What Jesus is doing is counteracting a major tenet of Jewish theology.

 

The Jews of Jesus' day and even Orthodox Judaism today believe that the Torah is spiritual nourishment for the faithful Jew.  The Rabbis viewed the study of Torah as akin to partaking of the tree of life.  They also view the Torah as "ma-yim ha-yim" (living water).   The Torah, therefore, is the spiritual food and drink of the Jew.  They believed that the study  of Torah brought them eternal life.

 

That is what Jesus is responding to.  He takes the food and drink metphor and applies it to Himself.  When Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, he doesn't have communion in mind.  He is presenting Himself as the true Way of eternal life.  Jesus was not being cannablistic. He is replacing the Torah with Himself.   Jesus is essentially saying that He is the living Torah, and that partaking of Him is how we attain eternal life.  Jesus, from the Jewish perspective is saying, if you want to partake of what the Tree of life meant, if you want true living water, you need to partake of me.

 

What made Jesus' words so hard for them to understand is that Jesus is delcaring Himself to be greater than the Torah and by extension greater than Moses.  Furthermore, by presenting Himself as the one able to impart eternal life, Jesus is proclaming Himself to be God.   That is why Jesus' teaching at this point was just too hard for many of His disciples to accept.  

[JTC]

shiloh, That sounds like a great explanation, but I have no idea whether it's true or not. You chose to take what Jesus said here as a metaphor, but the RCC chooses to take it literally. I'd agree with the RCC if I could find scriptures in a different book of the Bible that supported this idea. But I can't.

 

I'd like you to understand that I'm trying to figure out how Christianity became the mess it is today. The only way can see where this might possibly be accomplished is if everyone is willing to admit they are wrong on some things, and right on others.

 

Catholicism grew out of the Christian church Jesus started, and the apostles continued. Catholicism then split into East and Western Catholicism. Western Catholicism became RCC and then it really got messy.

 

I live on a small island off the eastern coast of the USA, and until the Internet was invented I didn't realize what a mess Protestantism has become. I'm not looking to argue with anyone, not here or on a Catholic board.,

 

But I think we all heard of "Divide and Conquer". Protestantism as been divided. I'm worried about who is going to conquer us. I ask myself, how did this happen. I know part of the answer. In a nutshell, America forgot we were founded by people who believed in God.

 

I can only hope I die before America gets conquered. One thing the RCC is right about, is that sin matters. Jesus never said we're free to sin all we want, and neither did the apostles. However, the apostles made one big mistake. They expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes. That's the only reason I can think of for why they didn't stress how important it is to not live a life of sin. So I went back to the Gospels and focused on the words of Jesus. Over and over Jesus stressed that we must obey God. Believing is not enough. Yes, forgiveness for sin is available. But most Americans are now living in sin, and they're not even worried about it.

 

Did you hear about this new church for Atheists? They sing and jump around like in Born Again churches. But they don't believe in any god. Actually they remind me of the Greek Pagan city Paul went to that had the temple to "An Unknown god".  Has America become a pagan nation? Paul probably would think so. I fear Jesus would think so too.

 

I don't know how old you are shiloh? I'm 61. I remember when many stores were closed on Sunday because we were trying to keep 1 day Holy for God. I tell you America was better back then. I don't think becoming socialist and Islamic is going to make America better.

 

I hope te young people can find a way to stop this. I believe they will need the help of God to do it. And to get His help we have to obey Him. Why is this so hard to see? I see it clearly. But I'm an old man in poor health. All I can do is be a voice. I can't change anything. But when I can show the love of God through my actions, I do.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh, That sounds like a great explanation, but I have no idea whether it's true or not. You chose to take what Jesus said here as a metaphor, but the RCC chooses to take it literally.

 

No, they are not taking it literally. I am the one taking it literally because I am pointing to the literal meaning that stands behind the metaphor.   The RCC is very bad about developing a doctrine and penciling it into the Scriptures after the fact.  There is no way to tie Jn 6:54 into communion or the Eucharist because that doctrine didn't exist when Jesus made those comments. 

 

I'd agree with the RCC if I could find scriptures in a different book of the Bible that supported this idea. But I can't.

 

And that should tell you something. It should tell you that their view of the body and blood of Jesus is incorrect and not supported by the Bible.

 

 

Catholicism grew out of the Christian church Jesus started, and the apostles continued.

 

 

That is false.  The RCC didn't exist until some 300-400 years after Christ.

 

 

 

I live on a small island off the eastern coast of the USA, and until the Internet was invented I didn't realize what a mess Protestantism has become. I'm not looking to argue with anyone, not here or on a Catholic board.,

 

The church has always been a mess. Did you know that none of the churches that Paul started lasted even 100 years?   The church of Galatia didn't last and he lost that church in his lifetime to the Judaizers.   By the time the epistles were being written, Colosse was already falling to gnostic heresies.  By the time John wrote to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation three, all seven of those churches were in state of decline.   They ended up falling apart.  The Corinthian Church was riddled with strife and people getting drunk at communion. I mean, the church of the first century wasn't so pure and pristine, when you get down to it.

 

 

 

I can only hope I die before America gets conquered. One thing the RCC is right about, is that sin matters. Jesus never said we're free to sin all we want, and neither did the apostles. However, the apostles made one big mistake. They expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes. That's the only reason I can think of for why they didn't stress how important it is to not live a life of sin.

 

Are you kidding, the NT is chock full of exhortation about living holy lives and living in purity.  You must not read the parts I read.

[JTC]

I know the NT is chock full of exhortation about living holy lives and living in purity. Not just is the NT full of exhortations for obeying God, but so is the OT. I've read all of the 66 books Christians consider the Bible, but Proverbs, Psalms, and all of the NT I've read more times than I can count. So maybe you aren't one of the people who gave me an argument last year, but if most people who call themselves Christians, were even trying to obey God, the face of America would look much different.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

I know the NT is chock full of exhortation about living holy lives and living in purity. Not just is the NT full of exhortations for obeying God, but so is the OT. I've read all of the 66 books Christians consider the Bible, but Proverbs, Psalms, and all of the NT I've read more times than I can count. So maybe you aren't one of the people who gave me an argument last year, but if most people who call themselves Christians, were even trying to obey God, the face of America would look much different.

You said that the apostles didn't stress the need for living in purity and holiness because they felt Jesus was coming back in their lifetime, and you are wrong on that point.   Titus 2:11-14 uses the second coming of Jesus as THE reason for living in holiness.   Their expectation of Jesus' return was the motive for holiness.  They did not demphasize holiness.  They emphasized it MORE than we do today.  

 

I don't care how many times you read the the Bible through.  It doesn't matter if you can't correctly comprehend it, which you have not given your claim that the apsotles didn't emphasize holiness.  It's no wonder you are so confused about the RCC's misapplication of John 6:54.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings JTC,

    I  am reading your posts & it just hurts my heart that you seem to worry so much about doctrines & traditions of men.....as far as the consecration of the eucharist and that it can only be made Holy by priests...this comes from the tradition & belief of the seven sacraments which is a catholic doctrine....these are things that are added by the church & not supported by scripture....besides ,Gods Word tells us that we are not to call ANYONE "Father",there is only ONE Father and that is God......

    I am sure there are many decent & good catholic churches that teach the unadulterated Word of God and I know many a wonderful catholic brother & sister in Christ that truly seem saved to me but no matter what you hear or what is being rumored,go to the Scriptures & pray the Holy Spirit give you Wisdom & Understanding,without Gods revelation you can read it 900x's to no avail....trust God,trust in your Savior,Christ Jesus and get into a deep & intimate relationship with Him.....ask Him,He is not a God of confusion & He will guide you into all truth....fear not,He is with you......

    Seeing what we perceive to be the signs that the end times are upon us should be a time that we are at peace & are comforted,not a time to worry........Seek God with all you heart,He will reveal Himself to you in His Word,this I pray for you in Jesus Name

                                                                                                     With much love,in Christ-Kwik