SamuelTheLamanite Posted December 31, 2017 Author Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are no known transcripts or scribal records of what Jesus said and did. Are you saying we don't know anything about Jesus and his ministry? 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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." A doctor on health line wrote, "Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details...According to the American Bar Association, of the 21 wrongful convictions overturned by the Innocence Project in 2011, 19 involved eyewitness testimony. More than three-quarters of wrongful convictions that are later overturned by DNA evidence were based on eyewitness reports." It is true eyewitness reports can be unreliable, but eyewitness accounts are much better than oral traditions. Oral traditions are worst and highly questionable. I believe the four gospels are reliable testimonies and I don't believe they come from oral traditions. We wouldn't possibly know anything about Jesus ministry on Earth had the testimonies come from oral traditions. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You might want to read up on Jesus scholarship before spouting off-hand opinions. I gave you a table here in case you missed it 23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: 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 AGE Projected Life Expectancy % of population in age group 15 46 10% 20 48 9% 30 53 8% 50 63 4% 23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I did not use the word "proof" here. You did. and I never use the word "proof" in our other discussions, but yet you kept telling yokels wanted proof. You told me it was my problem. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69570-god-probably-wont-allow-us-to-find-nahom/?page=13 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I recall that you never did accept the scholarly dating of the artifacts. Also, I doubt that you understand what the word "tight" means. I was undecided, but now I don't because you just told me there is no tight dating for the NHM rocks. Edited December 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted December 31, 2017 Author Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, mrmarklin said: 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. It makes sense that Roman elites lived longer than first century Jews. The Jews lived in poverty and under Roman abuse. ' 16 hours ago, Gray said: Here's a summary about authorship of the gospels: Scriptures can't be scriptures without a prophet writing or dictating them. The church defines scripture as "When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4). From the beginning, the Lord has commanded His prophets to keep a record of His revelations and His dealings with His children. Edited December 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Are you saying we don't know anything about Jesus and his ministry? Is that what I wrote? Did you even bother to read an elementary introduction to scholarship on the life of Christ? We know a great deal about Jesus, just not in the way in which you imagine. By constantly repeating falsehoods about the four Gospels, you bring discredit on the entire enterprise of understanding Jesus Christ. Quote A doctor on health line wrote, "Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details...According to the American Bar Association, of the 21 wrongful convictions overturned by the Innocence Project in 2011, 19 involved eyewitness testimony. More than three-quarters of wrongful convictions that are later overturned by DNA evidence were based on eyewitness reports." Memory can be unreliable, can you imagine just how very unreliable oral traditions for decades are? Oral traditions would be much much worse. I believe the four gospels are reliable testimonies and I don't believe they come from oral traditions. We wouldn't possibly know anything about Jesus ministry on Earth had the testimonies come from oral traditions. However, since you know nothing about the use of oral tradition in ancient times, your comments here are of no value at all. As usual, you appear to believe that one needs no training to do brain surgery, and that knowing anything about history is just like falling off a log. Quote I gave you a table here in case you missed it I said "You might want to read up on Jesus scholarship before spouting off-hand opinions." And you gave me a table on life expectancy? What has that to do with knowing about the life of Jesus? Quote and I never use the word "proof" in our other discussions, and yet you kept telling yokels wanted proof. You told me it was my problem. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69570-god-probably-wont-allow-us-to-find-nahom/?page=13 . False. Here are the actual instances in which you proved that you did not understand the concept at all, yet kept using the word you claim you didn't use: Quote “looking at one in a million hit after it happens won't prove much” Oct 20, 2017 “Ryan, it is impossible to prove that NHM = Nahom is a coincidence, but it is a reasonable assumption.” Oct 14, 2017 “We can never prove coincidence, you can only demonstrate that it is a decent possibility.” Oct 10, 2017 “we don't need proof. ” “we rarely need proof right?” Oct 4, 2017 “There is no proof that Smith used notes, just like there is no proof that ancient Nhmyn is the same Nihm tribe.” Oct 4, 2017 “Anti-mormons argue they don't have to prove that Smith saw a 1782 map. For me convincing evidence is necessary.” Oct 2, 2017 “we don't have to prove it right? Proof is not necessary right?” Oct 2, 2017 “Hyrum going to Dartmouth doesn't prove anything.” Sept 29, 2017 “I do believe Book of Mormon's Nahom is "mourning", but I can't prove it.” Sept 23, 2017 “My goal is not to prove NHM is a coincidence,” Sept 22, 2017 “1 Nephi 16: 14 is proof that Nahom hasn't been found,” Sept 17, 2017 “The Tel Dan inscription doesn't prove the Bible,” Sept 15, 2017 Quote I was undecided, but now I don't because you just told me there is no tight dating for the NHM rocks. Nice, but no cigar, Sam. You clearly do not know what the word "tight" means. Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 2
kiwi57 Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 Samuel, You appear to be conflating "lifespan" and "life expectancy." These are related concepts, but they are not the same. Live expectancy is based upon statistical averages. It varies from place to place, as well as from time to time, and is strongly influenced by environmental factors like infant mortality, nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and availability of health care. By contrast, lifespan is strictly biological; it is measured by upper boundaries, and shows far less variation. Human lifespan is what it is, regardless of whether one is a Galilean fisherman, an Egyptian fellah, an Igorot hunter or a London banker. Women generally have longer lifespans than men, but the relationship between lifespan and life expectancy is strongly influenced by other factors. If the average life expectancy in the 1st Century Levant was about 50, that has no bearing upon whether individuals might live past 90. I hope this helps. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: It makes sense that Roman elites lived longer than first century Jews. The Jews lived in poverty and under Roman abuse. Actually, the Jewish elite in Jerusalem, Caesarea, etc., lived as well as the Roman elite. They had fresh, clean water, hot & cold baths, underground sewers, and excellent food. Since you don't bother to read about the ancient world, naturally you know nothing of that, and therefore draw a great many false conclusions. 16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Scriptures can't be scriptures without a prophet writing or dictating them. .......................................................... False. Brigham Young said: Quote I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances. Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870) 2
SamuelTheLamanite Posted December 31, 2017 Author Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Is that what I wrote? Did you even bother to read an elementary introduction to scholarship on the life of Christ? We know a great deal about Jesus, just not in the way in which you imagine. By constantly repeating falsehoods about the four Gospels, you bring discredit on the entire enterprise of understanding Jesus Christ. Let's try to have a conversation. How can we know about Jesus ministry on Earth if the four testimonies come from oral traditions? Please give me a summary of the scholarship on the life of Christ. That being said many scholars do hold the view that we can't know much about Jesus because they argue the gospels come from oral traditions. 42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct. However, since you know nothing about the use of oral tradition in ancient times, your comments here are of no value at all. Many scholars say oral traditions are not reliable, and I agree. Non-canonical gospels do come from oral traditions, such as the Ascension of Isaiah. If you think oral traditions are reliable read the Ascension of Isaiah. The Ascension of Isaiah says Jesus was crucified by demons in outer space. 42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: False. Here are the actual instances in which you proved that you did not understand the concept at all, yet kept using the word you claim you didn't use: I didn't tell you "show me proof that Nihm is Nahom". 42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Nice, but no cigar, Sam. You clearly do not know what the word "tight" means. The dictionary says its fixed, fastened, or closed firmly; hard to move, undo, or open. 32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually, the Jewish elite in Jerusalem, Caesarea, etc., lived as well as the Roman elite. They had fresh, clean water, hot & cold baths, underground sewers, and excellent food. Since you don't bother to read about the ancient world, naturally you know nothing of that, and therefore draw a great many false conclusions. I gave you a table Robert and I gave you the link to the paper. 32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: False. Brigham Young said: The church defines scriptures that way, and you have nothing to show that anyone can write scriptures for the entire church. The Brigham Young quote was just his opinion. Edited December 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted December 31, 2017 Author Posted December 31, 2017 43 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Live expectancy is based upon statistical averages. It varies from place to place, as well as from time to time, and is strongly influenced by environmental factors like infant mortality, nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and availability of health care. By contrast, lifespan is strictly biological; it is measured by upper boundaries, and shows far less variation. Human lifespan is what it is, regardless of whether one is a Galilean fisherman, an Egyptian fellah, an Igorot hunter or a London banker. Women generally have longer lifespans than men, but the relationship between lifespan and life expectancy is strongly influenced by other factors. Very true, I strongly agree with everything you just said. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Let's try to have a conversation. How can we know about Jesus ministry on Earth if the four testimonies come from oral traditions? Please give me a summary of the scholarship on the life of Christ. That being said many scholars do hold the view that we can't know much about Jesus because they argue the gospels come from oral traditions. You need to read up on the Gospels, and a good place to start would be with the Gospels themselves in modern, scholarly translation-commentary form. See what the scholars say in the Anchor Bible series. You could start with Matthew in the translation-commentary by Albright & Mann, and continue on from there. That is, if you seriously desire to understand the Gospels at all. Meantime, I recommend the short introductory remarks in various modern Bible translations, such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, NRSV (OUP, 1991), NT iii, where it says (among other things) Quote Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. Similar comments may be found in a variety of introductions to modern translations. Quote Many scholars say oral traditions are not reliable, and I agree. Non-canonical gospels do come from oral traditions, such as the Ascension of Isaiah. If you think oral traditions are reliable read the Ascension of Isaiah. The Ascension of Isaiah says Jesus was crucified by demons in outer space. Until you master the NT generally, it would not be wise for you to spend time with the NT apocrypha. However, if you wish to see it the way scholars do, take a look at Hugh Nibley on the Forty Day Ministry of Christ -- http://fortydayministry.com/node/10 . Quote I didn't tell you "show me proof that Nihm is Nahom". You falsely claimed not to have used the word, and you clearly did not understand the concept. Quote The dictionary says its fixed, fastened, or closed firmly; hard to move, undo, or open. Too bad that you don't understand what "tight" dating might be. Quote ............................... The church defines scriptures that way, and you have nothing to show that anyone can write scriptures for the entire church. The Brigham Young quote was just his opinion. You failed to reply to Brigham Young's comments. Which of his comments were false? Or didn't you understand what he said? In fact, each of his sentences in that quotation were accurate, while your comments were false. I quoted your false comment so that you could rethink it. Seems that you don't carefully reflect on anything you say. Edited January 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
MDalby Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 On 12/30/2017 at 4:07 PM, 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? Thanks for being honest with me. So we had a long month debate for something that didn't have a tight dating. 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. Holy cow... Here we go again. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 On 12/30/2017 at 9:46 AM, RevTestament said: 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? There are pretty strong reasons to date to around 90 or later (96 being the most popular). The earliest traditions, like Iraneus or Clement, while close to a century after the fact, date it to then as well. The main reasons against a 70 AD date are pretty compelling. The first is being exiled to Patmos seems unusual for the period of Nero but makes sense for Domitian (under whose reign Clement and Iraneus ascribe it). The other problem is that the text describes some communities as rich or in apostasy which is very hard to line up to the period to the destruction of the temple. For instance Laodicea was destroyed by a volcano in 60 AD making a 70 AD dating of the text problematic. There's also religious persecution but that doesn't make sense for Nero's period where such persecution was limited to Rome. While somewhat ambiguous some read 11:8 as referring to the first destruction of Jerusalem as well. Dating John is difficult and I'm pretty skeptical of 70 AD although I'm sympathetic to the traditions going back to then. It's quite possible there was one or more oral traditions dating to John out of which the Gospel was compiled by later scribes. The idea that for the gospel of John to be John's it must have been written by John always struck me as somewhat odd. Even half the stuff ascribed to Joseph was written by his scribes but arising out of Joseph's teachings. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Scriptures can't be scriptures without a prophet writing or dictating them. The church defines scripture as "When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4). From the beginning, the Lord has commanded His prophets to keep a record of His revelations and His dealings with His children. You're equivocating over different senses of scripture. For instance by your use above D&C 134 isn't scripture but in an other sense it is. D&C 135 is also problematic in that sense. Then there's the question of historical books such as the Old Testament histories. 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 1, 2018 Author Posted January 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: You're equivocating over different senses of scripture That is the only definition I find in lds.org
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 1, 2018 Author Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Until you master the NT generally, it would not be wise for you to spend time with the NT apocrypha. However, if you wish to see it the way scholars do, take a look at Hugh Nibley on the Forty Day Ministry of Christ -- http://fortydayministry.com/node/10 . The Ascension of Isaiah passages about the crucifixion of Jesus were written in the first century, and pre-date the testimony of John. The passages say Jesus was an angel crucified by demons in outer space. Please tell in in your own words how oral traditions are reliable, or just a brief summary. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ascension-of-Isaiah-pseudepigraphal-work 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You need to read up on the Gospels, and a good place to start would be with the Gospels themselves in modern, scholarly translation-commentary form. See what the scholars say in the Anchor Bible series. You could start with Matthew in the translation-commentary by Albright & Mann, and continue on from there. Scholars don't share the same view, many scholars don't trust the gospels as reliable history. I trust the gospels because they are testimonies, not oral traditions. 31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: There are pretty strong reasons to date to around 90 or later (96 being the most popular). Thank you so much Clark! 8 hours ago, kiwi57 said: If the average life expectancy in the 1st Century Levant was about 50, that has no bearing upon whether individuals might live past 90. I completely agree with everything you say, but it is doubtful that the apostles lived longer than 60 years. We don't know the ages of the apostles, but what is more probable? Edited January 1, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
sunstoned Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 On 12/30/2017 at 8:08 AM, 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. Troll
Robert F. Smith Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 5 hours ago, sunstoned said: Troll Or maybe he is just ignorant. 1
RevTestament Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) see below darn it. Edited January 1, 2018 by RevTestament
RevTestament Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 13 hours ago, clarkgoble said: There are pretty strong reasons to date to around 90 or later (96 being the most popular). The earliest traditions, like Iraneus or Clement, while close to a century after the fact, date it to then as well. The main reasons against a 70 AD date are pretty compelling. The first is being exiled to Patmos seems unusual for the period of Nero but makes sense for Domitian (under whose reign Clement and Iraneus ascribe it). The other problem is that the text describes some communities as rich or in apostasy which is very hard to line up to the period to the destruction of the temple. For instance Laodicea was destroyed by a volcano in 60 AD making a 70 AD dating of the text problematic. There's also religious persecution but that doesn't make sense for Nero's period where such persecution was limited to Rome. While somewhat ambiguous some read 11:8 as referring to the first destruction of Jerusalem as well. Dating John is difficult and I'm pretty skeptical of 70 AD although I'm sympathetic to the traditions going back to then. It's quite possible there was one or more oral traditions dating to John out of which the Gospel was compiled by later scribes. The idea that for the gospel of John to be John's it must have been written by John always struck me as somewhat odd. Even half the stuff ascribed to Joseph was written by his scribes but arising out of Joseph's teachings. From what you have written I don't see your "strong reasons." I do agree that there is evidence of John being written or edited after the destruction of Jerusalem because as I have pointed out, the book refers to the "Jews" with a bit of disdain. Perhaps John was not a Jew. Other tribes had escaped from Assyria, and lived in Judea up to the time of Christ. However, by this point it seems there would have been a lot of intermarrying. Whatever the case the text has a strong post-Jerusalem Christian community tone to it. How does the destruction of Laodicea make a 90 AD dating more likely than a 70 AD dating? I guess I'm stupid, but I don't follow that. Nor do I follow your comment about Nero. Nero sent Vespasian to quell the "Jewish" revolt, which he did so in Galilee and the surrounding lands before zeroing down on Jerusalem. Nero then died. What does that really have to do with the authorship of John? I'm sure Christians in the area would have felt persecuted much like those holding onto Judaism. It was really a kind of slash and burn attack on everyone of Hebraic descent. So no, I would not agree that Nero's persecution was limited to Rome. But I really don't see how that is determinative of the dating of the book of John. There were rich communities in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. We don't positively know who lived in them, but archaeology has shown some pretty nice palatial-type residences with their own mikvahs, etc. These may have been occupied by some of the priestly elites, tax collectors, merchants or others. Again, I do not understand how their appearance in the text limits the dating of the book to 90 AD rather than 70 AD, and I don't see any "problem" you describe here. Indeed, I'm sure these communities were gone by 73 AD. The whole Hebrew economy was destroyed. Lastly, the earliest traditions you allude to merely place disciples of John around 90 AD. It is natural that those learning from John would disseminate his writings. They were obviously late in dissemination as they didn't appear in the original Peshitta. This says to me they were disseminated after the Church in Jerusalem was destroyed - I think that is better evidence for a post-Jerusalem authorship than those who knew John showing up around 90 AD. In any event I fail to see how your point pushes a 90-96 AD authorship. Many scholars seem to feel that John gives the most plausible version and explanation of Jesus' death. This implies an actual eyewitness accounting of the events, whereas Peter, ie Mark, denied Jesus at His arrest and ran, and would have had a different recollection than John. This of course implies an actual authorship by John, who was probably translated a decade or so before 90-96 AD.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 1, 2018 Author Posted January 1, 2018 15 hours ago, sunstoned said: Troll Let's just have a discussion. If you don't like the topic you don't have to participate, there is no need for the name calling.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 1, 2018 Author Posted January 1, 2018 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Or maybe he is just ignorant. I am not sure if you missed my points, so I will quote myself. Hopefully you teach me so I can get out of my ignorance. 16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: The Ascension of Isaiah passages about the crucifixion of Jesus were written in the first century, and pre-date the testimony of John. The passages say Jesus was an angel crucified by demons in outer space. Please tell in in your own words how oral traditions are reliable, or just a brief summary. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ascension-of-Isaiah-pseudepigraphal-work Scholars don't share the same view, many scholars don't trust the gospels as reliable history. I trust the gospels because they are testimonies, not oral traditions. Thank you so much Clark! Quote If the average life expectancy in the 1st Century Levant was about 50, that has no bearing upon whether individuals might live past 90. I completely agree with everything you say, but it is doubtful that the apostles lived more than 60 years. We don't know the ages of the apostles, but what is more probable?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Let's just have a discussion. If you don't like the topic you don't have to participate, there is no need for the name calling. I think he may be impressed by your comments that you are insincere. Since you make no effort to listen to good advice, and because you repeatedly make incoherent responses, he may have a point. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt, but am still waiting for you to engage actual scholarship -- in which you show no interest. Edited January 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I am not sure if you missed my points, so I will quote myself. Hopefully you teach me so I can get out of my ignorance. Thus far you have ignored my good advice to you (that is a habit with you). You need to begin with Albright & Mann on Matthew, and Hugh Nibley on the Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum. Once you have read those sources, you should report back on what you have learned. You are a complete beginner, with no basis for any of the off the wall comments you are making. You have yet to respond to the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, NRSV (OUP, 1991), NT iii, where it says (among other things) Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. You also failed to reply to Brigham Young's comments, which you rejected. Which of his comments were false? Or didn't you understand what he said? In fact, each of his sentences in that quotation were accurate, while your comments were false. I quoted your false comment so that you could rethink it. Seems that you don't carefully reflect on anything you say. Until you understand the basics, there is no point in going on to more complex matters. You are simply not ready for it. 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 2, 2018 Author Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Thus far you have ignored my good advice to you (that is a habit with you). You need to begin with Albright & Mann on Matthew, and Hugh Nibley on the Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum. Once you have read those sources, you should report back on what you have learned. You are a complete beginner, with no basis for any of the off the wall comments you are making. Robert, you ignored Frier. Do you want to engage in a conversation with me? You can tell me to read Nibley and others, but that is not a conversation. Do I have to read Nibley before you can answer my question? If you don't have an answer just tell me, it is okay not to know. 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. Okay, how can we know circulating stories are accurate? How do oral traditions tell us much about Jesus and his ministry? 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You also failed to reply to Brigham Young's comments, which you rejected. Which of his comments were false? Or didn't you understand what he said? Robert, nothing that Brigham Young said contradicts what I said. I said scriptures can't be scriptures without a prophet writing or dictating them and I gave you the definition of the church. Brigham Young did not mean the words of evil men are scriptures. Edited January 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 2, 2018 Author Posted January 2, 2018 Robert, if you tell me to read this or that I will just assume you don't want to engage in a conversation with me.
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: How does the destruction of Laodicea make a 90 AD dating more likely than a 70 AD dating? I guess I'm stupid, but I don't follow that. Newly destroyed cities are rarely described as wealthy however after 30 years you'd have enough time to rebuild it with trade. That's a pretty huge point. 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: Nor do I follow your comment about Nero. Nero sent Vespasian to quell the "Jewish" revolt, which he did so in Galilee and the surrounding lands before zeroing down on Jerusalem. Nero then died. What does that really have to do with the authorship of John? John describes a certain type of persecution that was characteristic not of Nero but of Domitian. There are counter-arguments against the Domitian persecutions. (Mainly arguing that the evidence for widespread Domitian persecution is weaker than it appears) Nero put down a Jewish revolt but by then the Christians had started separating. There's no indication that the Jewish revolt was tied to the Christians by Nero. Contrast this with Domintian's reign where persecutions of Christians were empire wide and not limited to Rome proper or the revolt in Jerusalem. But as with many arguments it's not any one point that is convincing. Were the persecutions of Nero and Domitian contrasted I'd agree it'd not be enough. However the distinction in addition to other points makes it far more compelling. I should add the strongest argument for the Domitian point is by Adela Yarbro Collins. I tried to find a good link but couldn't beyond the Google Books link. It's worth reading though. 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: Nero then died. What does that really have to do with the authorship of John? There were rich communities in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. We don't positively know who lived in them, but archaeology has shown some pretty nice palatial-type residences with their own mikvahs, etc. These may have been occupied by some of the priestly elites, tax collectors, merchants or others. Again, I do not understand how their appearance in the text limits the dating of the book to 90 AD rather than 70 AD, and I don't see any "problem" you describe here. Indeed, I'm sure these communities were gone by 73 AD. The whole Hebrew economy was destroyed. The Book of Revelation doesn't only talk about Jerusalem but the Seven Churches in Asia Minor. It's the description of those churches that allows the dating as they don't fit 70 AD. 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: Lastly, the earliest traditions you allude to merely place disciples of John around 90 AD. Umm. What? Irenaeus says it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian. He may well be wrong but he's not just placing disciples there. The main counterargument is that the antecedent of "it was seen" could be read ambiguously. Again were that the only point it wouldn't amount to much but it's part of a wider circumstantial argument. The question then becomes what's the evidence for the 70 AD date and that is even much more lacking. In any case I don't see how this has much to do with John. There's a strong tradition that John was translated and continued to serve walking the earth much like the three Nephites did. In that case his age is irrelevant. If one discounts the John and Three Nephite accounts then Jesus typically was seen ministering around 30 AD. If John was a teen he'd be in his late 70's by the time of the purported exile to Patmos. Hardly a problem. While people did die young in ancient times, it wasn't uncommon for some people to live well into their 70's. Edited January 2, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 2, 2018 Author Posted January 2, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: While people did die young in ancient times, it wasn't uncommon for some people to live well into their 70's. Hi Clark! Good reply! Do you have data of first century Jews living well into their 70s? So if we assume the apostles were 20 years in 30 AD, that would make them 60 years old in the year 70 AD. The gospels were written after 70 AD, so I suspect all the apostles were teenagers in the year 30. Here is research data from Frier's paper. To Frier that life expectancy of a 15 year old was 46 years. Quote 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 AGE Projected Life Expectancy % of population in age group 15 46 10% 20 48 9% 30 53 8% 50 63 4% 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: . There's a strong tradition that John was translated and continued to serve walking the earth much like the three Nephites did It is my understanding that you are a science evolution guy. How do you reconcile the three Nehites and John doctrine with science?
Recommended Posts