Orthodox_Freethinker

As for an explanation on both points:

"In A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."
http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/AT...1203-QS-11.pdf

Saddam Hussein threw babies out a window.

Bethlehem was a small village. The killing of a few babies under a tyrranical government wouldn't have been big news.

funinspace

While we are being snippety: some people even think that there was a 9/11 conspiracy. Yes, there are always fools who will swallow the most improbably of stories. All I spoke towards was the range of Christian Scholarly opinion. Which means that there are serious educated scholars, while still accepting Jesus Christ as their savior, have the opinion that accepts 120AD as the upper range for dating John. What a poster spews out here changes not a jot. You love to throw around words like know, fact, and proof all the time, when we have nothing close to such. You may not like their educated opinions, but it doesn't change the fact that these opinions exist. There, a proper use of the word "fact".

Orthodox_Freethinker

I'm writing an expose` on how 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by or with the consent of our own government. There is actual evidence that 9/11 was beyond Bin Laden.
As for the date of John, most scholars, Christian and secular, would place it in the late first century.

funinspace

Yippy, I'll put it right by my book (there's evidence in that book too):
THE TWELFTH PLANET, Zecharia Sitchin

Hum, I don't have a scholar poll on John...but I doubt the majority of secular scholars place John definitively in the first century. Can you back that up with anything?

funinspace

I do not deny it is possible, I consider in the context of the veracity of the whole…Deluge, the Exodus, Joshua solar object demands, genocide, the second sun shift, PoE, the convoluted trinity, an eunuch god, birthing stories, revelations, failed prophecies….

You missed the fun one :P
Yeah, and?

Orthodox_Freethinker

See, you must begin with the historicy of the Gospels and then judge the whole from there. The problem is that you have it backward.

funinspace

And you assume way to much about people you don't know a damn thing about. Ever heard what happens to people who assume?

Orthodox_Freethinker

"The traditional date of composition is c.AD 100; according to 20th-century scholarship it was composed probably between AD 95 and 115."
http://encyclopedia.com/html/j/john-g1os.asp

"Though John is agreed scholars place the gospel anywhere between AD 65 and 85, some scholars place the writing of the final edition of John later in the first or early second century...Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100. This final date is assumed in large part because John 2, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90-100 is expected. This claim has been rejected by conservative scholars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...rship_and_date

Orthodox_Freethinker

Whether or not the flood occurred has no bearing on the historicity of the Gospels.

Mageth

Umm, so? Totally irrelevant.

You obviously think Saddam's alleged acts were big news...

Well, in Herod's case, it certainly must not have been big news, as it's nowhere else recorded, neither in the Bible nor elsewhere.

And:

Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,...

How would that not be "big news"?

Bethlehem, if that was where Jesus was truly born (which is doubtful; again, that's likely an embellishment) was a "small village".

And Herod would be afraid of babies in a small village as threats to his "kingship", why?

The whole account is clearly fiction, O_F. Why should we believe it?