Can any of the texts of the New Testament, other than Acts, 1 Thessalonians or 2 Peter (for which I already have evidence), be interpreted in such a way that they MUST have been written before the end of the first century?
One of the most important indicators of the date of a manuscript is the presence of any references to chronologically known events. In the case of the New Testament, a major event is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD/CE.
For example, the account in Acts about Paul's involvement and arrest over an incident at the Jerusalem Temple indicates that the Temple had not been destroyed yet. Someone challenging this reference would have to come up with some extraordinary contradicting evidence.
However, the absence of a reference to a major event, doesn't necessarily mean that a manuscript preceded the event, and this is where historical contexts are subject to argument--would the writer have been expected to mention the event in the context of the subject of the manuscript.