Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.<quoted text>
First of all, "this prophecy" refers to the Book of Revelation only. Secondly, the "one who reads aloud" would be the Church since she and only she was given the authority by Christ. The author of the Book of Revelation, St. John, is in the Church.*Not* every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides on his own that *he* has authority (i.e. self-proclaimed paper popes). He doesn't and never will.
Thirdly, to hear implies oral teaching which is how the early Church spread the Gospel. Nothing was written, nothing was read. So according to your private interpretation above, those in the early Church weren't blessed!
Fourthly, you are attempting to use Revelation to trump Acts 8:26-40 which very clearly states we are *not* to interpret scripture privately but to go to those in authority, the Church...in this case St. Philip.
Too many errors, Hank. What you're proposing is not the faith taught by the apostles.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.
Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.
During Christ time on earth the apostles where told not to take script on their journeys after his crucifixion then they were told to take script.