I am not a scholar. I never finished college, and my view of the "Truth" is based on things which I have read. I have read Mormon, Baptist, JW, Christian Scientist, Jack Chick, and yes (pardon me for saying the "C" word) Catholic writing.
Does anyone know when the books of the NT were written? Knowing this might have a real impact on the way we view some parts of the NT books.
For instance, on one radio program I heard that since the Gospel of John doesn't re-present the "THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD" dialogue, then it really isn't that important.
However, if it was written many years after the other three, and John wanted to more fully explain the true meaning of those words by writing, For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Wouldn't this have an impact on the way we should look at his writings?
Never having studied the early Church as some of you have, can you give me a time line showing when the books of the NT are believed to have been written?
New Testament Chronology
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Glen Seeker, May 30, 2003.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
The "problem" is that John's emphasis is on the John 6 instance that is NOT the Lord's table. John is claiming that Christ is ALREADY FOOD - long before the Lord's Table. He makes it appear that the FAITHFUL were ALREADY to be biting that food and drinking that blood.
John does not present it in John chapter 6 as "Some day in the future you will need to eat my flesh and drink my blood to have eternal life".
Rather the claim is that the bread of life ALREADY came down from heaven and His flesh ALREADY is food.
Then in the summary of John 6 - in His OWN summary statement - Christ says "literal flesh is pointless" in regard to the goal of eternal life -- rather "MY WORD is Spirit and is life".
Christ used the symbol of bread to represent "teaching" several times in the Gospels not just in John 6.
Many scholars conclude that John's writings were after that of Matthew.
In Christ,
Bob -
But you knew that didn't you? You are looking for the year, like 41AD, or 65AD. You are looking for a provable Chronology of the scriptures. It is unlikely that anyone knows the order of completion of the writings, as they probably did not date their documents in accordance with the Gregorian Calendar.
Besides that, we do not have the original documents, only hand scribed copies, that according to our universalist friends are not reliable, but rather influenced by paganism from the time of Constantine and Augustine and perhaps Tertullian. The Pagan influence is identified by thoughts such as "eternal punishment for unbelievers" and that "many will not believe in Jesus". Basically anything that does not fall within the parameter of "God is Love" is of pagan influence...according to universalism. -
-
We took a six weeks class and most of the information was taken from this book. I bought it and I must say I am fascinated with the information.
It talks about, differences between Bible versions-do they matter, where does the Bible text come from, and how are Bible translations made.
Check it out! You can find it at most religious book stores.
MEE -
MEE,
Thanks. Does it show what current belief is about in what order the books of the NT were written?
Was 1Tim. written before 2Tim. or was it just accepted as scripture before the other?
How long after the Sinoptic Gospels was the Gospel of John written?
I'm short of cash right now, but I'll see if I can get the book in the future. -
I don't know about the Gospels, but I think 1 Timothy was written first during St. Paul's final journeys. 2 Timothy was written after he was rearrested, while he awaited execution (between 64-67 A.D.)
-
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/084233484X/all/ref=dp_pb_a/104-7985152-8781505 -
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
I think 1 Timothy was written first during St. Paul's final journeys.
The consensus among contemporary scholars concerning the chronology of the New Testament lies in the opinion that First Thessalonians is the first Pauline epistle to have been penned. -
In this time of the 21st century, why is actual timing of the completion of each book of the New Testament important? It is doubtful knowing that would increase understanding of the contents.
-
Someone posted that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, died out in 70 AD. Not so!
To my knowledge John had the Holy Ghost, evidenced with speaking in tongues, and he was alive after 70 AD.
This is just one example where timing is important.
MEE -
Someone posted that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, died out in 70 AD. Not so!
To my knowledge John had the Holy Ghost, evidenced with speaking in tongues, and he was alive after 70 AD.
This is just one example where timing is important.
MEE </font>[/QUOTE]John was also priveleged to get a sneak peak of the spirit realm that few of us have had. It was intended that way so that we could have the written text to prepare our hearts for our own future. -
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
It is doubtful knowing that would increase understanding of the contents.
Knowing the chronology of the epistles helps us understand Paul's thought, and understanding the Apostle's thought aids our interpretation. -
It is likely that the Galatians letter was written shortly after Paul returned from his first journey when he founded the Galatian congregations, but before the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Galatians was therefore probably written in 48 or 49 A.D. and the Jerusalem council met later in 49.
1 and 2 Thessalonians were written around 49-52 A.D. (ACTS 16-18)
I and 2 Corinthians and Romans - 53-58 A.D. (ACTS 19-20)
Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians - 61-63 A.D. (ACTS 27-28)
1 Timothy, Titus and finally 2 Timothy around 64 and 67 A.D.
Im sure these dates can be argued, but I just wanted to clear up my mix up with 1 Tim. Sorry again. -
Here are some online estimates of the dates they are recorded from various websites:
From http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/indextext/BiblicalDates.html
c. 50 I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
c. 53 Galatians
c. 55 Romans, I Corinthians,
c. 57 II Corinthians, James (40 - 60 A.D.)
c. 60 Mark, Luke, John, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon
c. 62 I Timothy, II Timothy, Acts, Titus,
c. 64 I Peter
c. 66 II Peter
c. 68 to 80 Hebrews
c. 90 I John, II John, III John, Jude
c. 95 Revelation
From:http://bibledesktop.homestead.com/dat.html
Matthew..................c.4060
Mark........................c.45-60
Luke........................57-60
John........................c.40-65
Acts........................57-62
Romans..................
1 Corinthians.........57
2 Corinthians.........55
Galatians................56
Ephesians..............56
Philippians.............58
Colossians.............58
1 Thessalonians....58
2 Thessalonians....early 50
1 Timothy................50-51
2 Timothy................55
Titus........................57
Philemon................58
Hebrews.................67
James.....................40's
1 Peter....................65
2 Peter....................61-62
1 John.....................57-62
2 John.....................57-62
3 John.....................57-62
Jude........................61-62
Revelation..............65-69
Hope that helps in the discussion. -
Nice to ponder, but does it alter or increase anyone's understanding of the content of the books?
-
The date for the book of Revelation has always been a bone of contention. Catholics would like to believe thei 65 ad theory, Baptists believe around 90 ad or so. Alot of eschatology hinges on that date.
-
An excellent, scholarly book on the dating of Revelation is by Kenneth Gentry entitled, Before Jerusalem Fell: The Dating of Revelation.
-
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
The date for the book of Revelation has always been a bone of contention. Catholics would like to believe thei 65 ad theory, Baptists believe around 90 ad or so. Alot of eschatology hinges on that date.
Do you really think it is safe and honest to make such broad generalizations? -
explain
Page 1 of 2