Orthodox_Freethinker

John was one of Jesus' youngest disciples. In the 90's, John would have probably been in his 80's.
It's highly possible that he would have lived this long with the blessing of God (food, shelter, good health, etc.)

Not-For-Prophet

I thought you said your documents should be held to the same standard of proof as other historical documents? Did you change your mind?

funinspace

That "c." means circa, which means approximately or around. The site said c. 100AD, aka around 100AD, which means plus or minus a few years, which means it's potentially in the SECOND CENTURY.

I do not require this late date! I never suggested I did. I am quite comfortable with a range of 95-115AD for dating. I merely brought up the outer generally accepted limit. What the heck are you even arguing about.

Pst...Are you just ignoring where Jesus went after leaving Bethlehem.

funinspace

Yes, but you are cherry picking the dates on the optimal side of the ledger, and ignoring the range. The worste case is him being 100+ which is very improbable.

Mageth

Elsewhere you've asserted that the Apostles, or almost all of them, were killed for their beliefs, and used this as an argument in support of the truth of their beliefs.

Was John an exception?

And "God's blessing" doesn't seem to have done much for the life expectancy of all those martyred disciples and apostles you've gone on about..

funinspace

No bearing? Someone more relevent than you thought it had bearing:

Ma 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

greyline

If Mathew considered the OT flood story to be allegorical, metaphorical, inaccurate or exaggerated (I think O_F has claimed one of these previously), then wouldn't Mathew's reference to the story imply that he thought the second coming was also allegorical, metaphorical, inaccurate or exaggerated?

funinspace

Yeah, that would be reasonable. OF has said the Deluge is a fable or such, and the genocides to be not of God or a crock. Though he wants the NT to be historically accurate and literal. I had tried to engage in a discussion to gain a better idea of how he sees this transition to fables/not quite accurate perception of the Hebrew canon to fully accurate. He seams to prefer lots of short jabs. There seams to be 2 main things in this thread: (1) OF's contention that us atheists don't treat the Bible like other historical/religious works. (2) OF likes to throw out contentious words like "know, proof, fact" without providing any significant evidence to support it. When cornered, he either drops the specific topic, or justifies it with a generalized support reference that talks about probably, approximate, et.al and thinks he has it covered. So we end up bouncing around all over the place.

OF, I would still be interesting in where you think the baby Jesus traveled: (1) Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth (2) Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth? And maybe a short explanation of why you don't see Matthew and Luke as conflicting...that would be cool.

TomboyMom

Orthodox: Did you forget this challenge, or can you not meet it?

TomboyMom

??? Maybe you're right, and I don't understand what you're saying, because it makes no sense to me. Members of the People's Temple mistakenly believed things about Jim Jones, and died because of their mistaken belief. (A few of) the apostles (may have, I do not concede this) died because they believed things about Jesus. Their belief may have been mistaken. How is their position different from that of people who lived with Jim Jones every day?