John the apostle had to be about 8 years old during Jesus ministry on Earth

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Joseph Smith was called as a prophet when he was 14 years old.  John was called to the ministry when he was very young. The testimony of Mark dates no earlier than the year 70 AD, at least 40 years after Jesus was crucified. The testimony of John dates to 90 AD at the earliest which is 60 years after the crucifixion. The average lifespan for a grown man in first century Palestine was 50 years. Peter and the apostles had to be between 14-19 years old because they wrote their testimonies in the late first century, well exceeding the life expectancy of a grown man. The first apostles were truly blessed with health and strength, if the apostles were 16 years old in 30 AD they would have been 60 years old in 70 AD which is ten years above the average lifespan at the time. My message is that God can call your children at a very young age to do his work and his glory. 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The testimony of John dates to 90 AD at the earliest which is 60 years after the crucifixion. 

Textual-scholar nonsense. The gospel of John dates to about the time of the destruction of the temple - when showing a slight disdain for the Jews was acceptable. This would make John in his seventies - a perfectly reasonable age.  Yes, God can call His servants at a very young age - as shown  by Samuel being called soon after entering the service of the temple - but you are going about showing it in a strange way to say the least - are you trying to say something about yourself?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Joseph Smith was called as a prophet when he was 14 years old.  John was called to the ministry when he was very young. The testimony of Mark dates after the year 70 AD, at least 40 years after Jesus was crucified. The testimony of John dates to 90 AD at the earliest which is 60 years after the crucifixion. The average lifespan for a man in first century Palestine was 50 years. Peter and the apostles had to be between 14-19 years old because they wrote their testimonies in the late first century, well exceeding the life expectancy for a man. The first apostles were truly blessed with health and strength, if the apostles were 16 years old in 30 AD it would mean they were almost 60 years old in 70 AD which is ten years above the average lifespan at the time. My message is that God can call your children at a very young age to do his work and his glory. 

The only NT documents on which we have tight dating of any kind are the letters of Paul and James, which are quite early.  It is speculation, not only who wrote the Gospels, the book of Revelation, etc., but more importantly how long a process of editing each underwent.

The other problem is with average lifespan in any given time and place.  Calculation of longevity averages always entails infant mortality, which was horrendously high before modern medicine became widely available.  Thus, a high infant and young child death rate brings the overall average way down, when in fact the average person living to adulthood lives much longer than so-called "average" lifespan.  Decades longer.  This also means that one's station in life has a strongly determinative effect.  Someone who is a slave, for example, will not live as long as a member of the elite, or some ordinary freeman who does not indulge in women and booze every night.  That is, some lifestyles offer better longevity.  With half the population of Rome in slavery, that means very different figures for fully half the population.

You need to go back to the drawing board, Samuel.  Meantime,  here is a short comment from archeologist Mark Wright on real world lifespans:

Quote

Keep in mind that the Nephite record keepers were from the ruling lineage, and anciently elites tended to have longer life spans because they had access to better quality food and they didn't wear their lives out with physically taxing work the way non-elites did. We only have data for both the birth dates and death dates of 17 Classic period Maya rulers, and their average age at death is 64.7 years. Some of the longest lived Maya kings were Itzamnaaj B'alam II of Yaxchilan was between 94.8 and 98.5 years old when he died, Calakmul's king Yukno'om the Great lived to be 85, Chan Imix K'awiil of Copan was about 83 when he died, a ruler of El Cayo named Chak Lakamtuun lived to 82, K'inich Janaab' Pakal from Palenque was 80, Aj Wosal of Naranjo was at least 78, and K'an Joy Chitam (also from Palenque) lived until he was 74.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/4176-hashbaz/?do=content&type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1 .

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only NT documents on which we have tight dating of any kind are the letters of Paul and James, which are quite early.

Robert, you told me we didn't need proof. To quote your exact words, "An ignoramus seeks proof" and "but you never seem to get it that we are not seeking "proof " of anything. Only plausible indicators." Robert, there are not many scholars that date the testimonies before 70 AD.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is speculation, not only who wrote the Gospels, the book of Revelation, etc., but more importantly how long a process of editing each underwent.

The apostles had to be alive after 70 AD because the four testimonies are eyewitness accounts right?  Book of Mormons says John wrote about the end of the world, and the Book of Revelation dates to 90 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The other problem is with average lifespan in any given time and place.  Calculation of longevity averages always entails infant mortality, which was horrendously high before modern medicine became widely available.  Thus, a high infant and young child death rate brings the overall average way down, when in fact the average person living to adulthood lives much longer than so-called "average" lifespan.  Decades longer. 

Robert, I did take into account infant mortality, which is why I specified the average lifespan for a grown man was 50 years at the time. The life expectancy was much worst, it was 35 years.

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to go back to the drawing board, Samuel.  Meantime,  here is a short comment from archeologist Mark Wright on real world lifespans:

The average lifespan for a grown man was 50 years at the time, I did take into account infant mortality.  Wright is talking about the New World 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Calm]

"why I specified the maximum lifespan for a grown man was 50 years"

So what happened to the men who looked like they were going to be living past their 51st birthday?  Did they get to drink hemlock on their birthday eve?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"why I specified the maximum lifespan for a grown man was 50 years"

So what happened to the men who looked like they were going to be living past their 51st birthday?  Did they get to drink hemlock on their birthday eve?

[strappinglad]

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The maximum lifespan for a grown man in first century Palestine was 50 years.

So you are saying that the OLDEST man alive during the time of Christ was 50 years old ?? 

Horsefeathers ! As has been indicated, once a person made it past the deadly hurdles of the first half dozen years, they were likely to live a normal lifespan of about, dare I say it, 3 score and ten . Soldiers might be on the low end of the scale.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

So what happened to the men who looked like they were going to be living past their 51st birthday?  Did they get to drink hemlock on their birthday eve?

You could have asked me the same thing for 116th birthday because the maximum human lifespan is 115 years.

Let me make one more correction. The maximum average lifespan meaning the highest possible average,  I probably shouldn't have used maximum. So let me just leave it at "average lifespan for a grown man".
 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only NT documents on which we have tight dating of any kind are the letters of Paul and James, which are quite early.

Robert, just one off topic question. Do we have a tight dating for the NHM temple inscriptions near Baran?

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The maximum lifespan for a grown man was 50 years at the time, I did take into account infant mortality.  Wright is talking about the New World 

False.  You cited no sources, and provided no evidence that you took into account infant mortality rates -- thus subtracting them from the overall calculation of averages.

While it is true that Wright was describing Mesoamerican elites, such lifespan figures are as true for the Old World and Asia, and for the same reasons which I described in detail for you.  If you have an objection to my comments on Old World lifespans and the reasons for them, by all means discuss what I said.  Why did you utterly ignore the points I made?  Here are some more points for you to ignore:

Aside from his coregency with his father (Seti I), from age 25 Ramesses II reigned about 67 years, and fathered over a hundred children (Dynasty 19; Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, pp. 257,267).  Pharaoh Pepy I (Meryre‘ Piopi), of the "Memphite" Dynasty VI, reigned 53 years according to Manetho (Gardiner, pp. 93-94,97).  Pharaoh Merenre‘ reigned around 10 years, then was succeeded by his half-brother Pepy II, who reigned over 90 years (according to Manetho and the Turin Canon; Gardiner, p. 101).   Ramesses III reigned 31 years and lived into his 60s, at which point it is not clear whether he was murdered or died of natural causes (Susan Redford, The Harem Conspiracy: The Murder of Ramesses III [DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univ., 2002]).  The next to the last ruler of the Hyksos, King Apophis, ruled for at least 41 years (S. W. Manning, Test of Time [1999], 361-362, citing a reconstructed Turin Canon; n. 1608, he notes that Manetho gives 61 years of reign to Apophis, but he considers that “impractical”).  The Hittite King Hatusili I reigned about 30-35 years, dying at around 50-60 years of age (Manning, Test of Time, 358).

Acsádi, Gy., and J. Nemeskéri, History of Human Life Span and Mortality (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970).

Brothwell, D., and B. Chiarelli, Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians (London: Academic, 1973).

Hopkins, Keith, Sociological Studies in Roman History, II, Death and Renewal (Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), 31-200, on the demographic composition of an ancient elite.

Janssen, Rosalind M. & Jac. J., Getting Old in Ancient Egypt (London: Rubicon Press, 1996).

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, just one off topic question. Do we have a tight dating for the NHM temple inscriptions near Baran?

No.  Not in the sense in which you have suggested in the past, nor in comparison with Pauline and Jacobean letters in the NT.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, you told me we didn't need proof. To quote your exact words, "An ignoramus seeks proof" and "but you never seem to get it that we are not seeking "proof " of anything. Only plausible indicators."

I did not use the word "proof" here.  You did.  I said "The only NT documents on which we have tight dating of any kind are the letters of Paul and James, which are quite early."  What part of that do you not understand or agree with?

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, there are not many scholars that date the testimonies before 70 AD.

I assume that you are speaking of the Gospels here, and I agree with you.  So what is your point?

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The apostles had to be alive after 70 AD because the four testimonies are eyewitness accounts right?  Book of Mormons says John wrote about the end of the world, and the Book of Revelation dates to 90 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible .

The four Gospels are theological statements made by a now Gentile Church based on oral and some written traditions about Jesus.  We do not know who wrote them, and who edited them, but we do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic & Hebrew and that the Gospels are in Greek (which he did not speak).  We also know that the Gospels do not agree with each other on what actually happened in Jesus life, or what exactly he said.  What we have are carefully crafted traditions.  The book of Revelation is even more unique, and we do not know who wrote it or precisely why.  Secular historians and theologians have never agreed about these matters, except in a general sense.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, I did take into account infant mortality, which is why I specified the average lifespan for a grown man was 50 years at the time. The life expectancy was much worst, it was 35 years.

"average lifespan," "life expectancy" . . . How about some definitions and credible sources, Sam.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How about some definitions and credible sources, Sam.

Frier, B. (1983). Roman Life Expectancy: The Pannonian Evidence. Phoenix, 37(4), 328. doi:10.2307/1088154

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1088154?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Quote

AGE                  Projected Life Expectancy                   % of population in age group

15                      46                                                            10%

20                      48                                                            9%

30                       53                                                           8%

50                       63                                                           4%

 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[The Nehor]

The dating of the gospels is based far too much on the premise that prophecy (especially the destruction of the Temple) had to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

If LDS accept this as definitive proof and a standard in dating texts we need to revise the dating of D&C 87 back by about 30 years and find a new author.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The four Gospels are theological statements made by a now Gentile Church based on oral and some written traditions about Jesus.  We do not know who wrote them, and who edited them, but we do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic & Hebrew and that the Gospels are in Greek (which he did not speak).

We trust the four Gospels because they are eyewitness testimonies. Oral traditions are not reliable, the gospels can't possibly be a hearsay. Have you ever played the game telephone? If the gospels come from oral traditions then how could they possibly be reliable?

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  Not in the sense in which you have suggested in the past, nor in comparison with Pauline and Jacobean letters in the NT.

Thanks for being honest with me. So we had a long month debate for something that didn't have a tight dating. 

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The dating of the gospels is based far too much on the premise that prophecy (especially the destruction of the Temple) had to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

Why would scholars estimate the testimony of John was written between 90 and 110 AD? 90 AD is 20 years after the destruction of the Temple.

Edited December 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, you told me we didn't need proof. To quote your exact words, "An ignoramus seeks proof" and "but you never seem to get it that we are not seeking "proof " of anything. Only plausible indicators." Robert, there are not many scholars that date the testimonies before 70 AD.

The apostles had to be alive after 70 AD because the four testimonies are eyewitness accounts right?  Book of Mormons says John wrote about the end of the world, and the Book of Revelation dates to 90 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Robert, I did take into account infant mortality, which is why I specified the average lifespan for a grown man was 50 years at the time. The life expectancy was much worst, it was 35 years.

I read the biography of Cicero a while back. Many of the Roman elites lived well into their eighties and one prominent politician died of natural causes at 103. 

Cësar was not considered old at 54 when he was murdered. 

Not to mention that John the apostle hasn’t yet passed on!

Edited December 31, 2017 by mrmarklin

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

I read the biography of Cicero a while back. Many of the Roman elites lived well into their eighties and one prominent politician died of natural causes at 103. 

Cësar was not considered old at 54 when he was murdered. 

Not to mention that John the apostle hasn’t yet passed on!

For Frier the life expectancy of a 20 year old was 48 years, I highly doubt Roman elites died at 80. First century Jews lived in poverty, so their life expectancy was lower.  Today in the US the life expectancy of a 20 year old is 82 years 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1088154?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Gray]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Joseph Smith was called as a prophet when he was 14 years old.  John was called to the ministry when he was very young. The testimony of Mark dates no earlier than the year 70 AD, at least 40 years after Jesus was crucified. The testimony of John dates to 90 AD at the earliest which is 60 years after the crucifixion. The average lifespan for a grown man in first century Palestine was 50 years. Peter and the apostles had to be between 14-19 years old because they wrote their testimonies in the late first century, well exceeding the life expectancy of a grown man. The first apostles were truly blessed with health and strength, if the apostles were 16 years old in 30 AD they would have been 60 years old in 70 AD which is ten years above the average lifespan at the time. My message is that God can call your children at a very young age to do his work and his glory. 

 

All the gospels are anonymous, certainly not written by any of the original apostles. Peter didn't write the epistles attributed to him.

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

All the gospels are anonymous, certainly not written by any of the original apostles. Peter didn't write the epistles attributed to him.

So you are saying that we have samples of the writings of the apostles and none can be matched to the gospels styles , or is it that none knew Greek so the writers were at best copying from original sources that were in the language of the apostles ?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

So you are saying that we have samples of the writings of the apostles and none can be matched to the gospels styles , or is it that none knew Greek so the writers were at best copying from original sources that were in the language of the apostles ?

Here's a summary about authorship of the gospels:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date

 

 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Not to mention that John the apostle hasn’t yet passed on!

This doctrinal truth strikes me as a very important indication that John's supposed age when writing is basically irrelevant.

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 The testimony of John dates to 90 AD at the earliest which is 60 years after the crucifixion. The average lifespan for a grown man in first century Palestine was 50 years.

John didn't die - he could have written his testimony far beyond and average lifespan.

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For Frier the life expectancy of a 20 year old was 48 years, I highly doubt Roman elites died at 80. First century Jews lived in poverty, so their life expectancy was lower.  Today in the US the life expectancy of a 20 year old is 82 years 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1088154?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

They didn’t ALL die at eighty.  But some lived long lives.  

 

Cicero himself lived to age 63. And may have lasted much longer. Unfortunately we’ll never know. He was murdered.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

We trust the four Gospels because they are eyewitness testimonies. Oral traditions are not reliable, the gospels can't possibly be a hearsay. Have you ever played the game telephone? If the gospels come from oral traditions then how could they possibly be reliable?

There are no known transcripts or scribal records of what Jesus said and did in Palestine.  You might want to read up on Jesus scholarship before spouting off-hand opinions.  As to oral tradition, you might want to read Albert Lord's Singer of Tales -- http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/SingerOfTales.pdf .  Also you do not appear to understand the words "reliable" or "hearsay."

Quote

Thanks for being honest with me. So we had a long month debate for something that didn't have a tight dating. 

.........................................................

I recall that you never did accept the scholarly dating of the artifacts.  Also, I doubt that you understand what the word "tight" means.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith