The Gospel of John

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
I don't think that John wrote that gospel ...
OK. Each to his own.

And that suggests that John lived in to the 2nd century. I don't expect that the lifetime of the average Gennesaret boatman would have been more than 50ish years.
Why? Barring accidents, one could expect the three-score-years-and-ten...

I acknowledge your opinion, but in that case he either forgot about or missed out the most astonishing and important event in his lifetime, one which Cephas wrote about as the centre of his faith.
A point much discussed by scholars. The essence being that John knew the testimonies that would become the Synoptics, and saw no need to repeat them. He perhaps alludes to it (1:14), but then again, his Christ is the Transfigured Christ from the get-go.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
OK. Each to his own.
Fair enough. :)

Why? Barring accidents, one could expect the three-score-years-and-ten...
Sady, I feel sure that's not so. I wonder if anyone has researched this? Whether to search historical records or to select a country today with anywhere near similar living standards. I need to research the average through English history, preferably in communities like Whitstable or Brixham.

Yep.....can we put that one on hold ??

A point much discussed by scholars. The essence being that John knew the testimonies that would become the Synoptics, and saw no need to repeat them. He perhaps alludes to it (1:14), but then again, his Christ is the Transfigured Christ from the get-go.
I just cannot figure out how he produced the timeline that he did, or for instance that last week's calendar if he had read the gospel of Mark.
During Lent (you were absented) I mentioned to another member that no Christian had ever been able to tell me what Jesus and his disciples did in the Temple during that last Palm Sunday. It's possibly to do with a strong focus on mainly G-John....I don't know why, though.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
@Thomas ... The average life in medieval London amongst land holding families was 31.3 years

London was dirtier, but I'm not expecting an average of more than 50 yrs in 1st century Galilee amongst working classes
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
During Lent (you were absented) I mentioned to another member that no Christian had ever been able to tell me what Jesus and his disciples did in the Temple during that last Palm Sunday.
It's not recorded what they did? So nobody of any religion can tell you, lol

It's speculation ...
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
It's not recorded what they did? So nobody of any religion can tell you, lol

It's speculation ...
Wrong.
It's recorded what they did.
I think I showed you the information?
I seem to remember that you replied, something about it not being very important..... do you remember?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
@Thomas ...... 46-48 years seems to be a rough figure for average lifespans in in early first century Palestinian provinces.
I have read that the average Roman life expectancy was about 33years.

Obviously some people could reach higher ages, but that would have made them 'special'.

Here is one example of what answers were offered:-
What was the average life span of a person in biblical times ...https://www.quora.com
The average life expectancy of people who survived childhood in the 1st century ce was about 48 years. It was possible to live longer than that.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Removed
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Wrong.
It's recorded what they did.
I think I showed you the information?
I seem to remember that you replied, something about it not being very important..... do you remember?
I must have missed it. Sorry. Can you please repeat it? I seem to remember you said they went sightseeing?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
I must have missed it. Sorry. Can you please repeat it? I seem to remember you said they went sightseeing?
Correct. They went sightseeing, in the Temple, for the day. It was a big place.
This clear report shows me that this group didn't go to the Temple very often, maybe once a year or even less. Some Northern Jews even held religious feasts away from the Great Temple, an action which must have infuriated both the Priesthood and Rome, both taking %s of Temple takings. This is made clear by Luke's mention of Northern Jew's blood being mixed with their sacrifices, imo.

How much difference small inconsequential remarks can make to the bigger picture, and there was no reason or angle for including such pieces of info. The Gospels are full of 'by the way', innocuous, points that could not have been included because of any agenda....... they were simply just there.

These mentions could fall in to that category whilst making a difference to the picture.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
They went sightseeing, in the Temple, for the day. It was a big place.
This clear report shows me that this group didn't go to the Temple very often, maybe once a year or even less.
Jesus often entered the temple. He often taught in the temple. As a devout spiritual figure, the temple may have been first on his list. It wasn't his first visit to the temple in Jerusalem. He was familiar with it. In all likelihood he and his followers went there to pray.

I get your point that may have been when Jesus made up his mind to throw out the money-lenders, but I don't see what's extraordinary about Jesus and his followers making a first stop at the temple in Jerusalem, after his welcome entrance into the city.

I don't think palms were thrown down for all visitors coming to the feast, as you speculate elsewhere. The welcome was clearly for Jesus, who was clearly regarded as a holy man and healer ...
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
Jesus often entered the temple. He often taught in the temple. As a devout spiritual figure, the temple would have been first on his list. It wasn't his first visit to the temple in Jerasulem. He was familiar with it. In all likelihood he and his followers went there to pray.
I just read what it says, preferably in G-Mark

I get your point that may have been when Jesus made up his mind to throw out the money-lenders, but I don't see what's extraordinary about Jesus and his followers making a first stop at the temple in Jerusalem, after his welcome entrance into the city.
Jesus didn't........ at least, not on that day he didn't. I just read what it says, preferable in G-Mark

I don't think palms were thrown down for all visitors coming to the feast, as you speculate elsewhere. The welcome was clearly for Jesus, who was clearly regarded as a holy man and healer ...
OK, I accept your opinion, but my opinion is that the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding townships got very fat from ripping off the visiting Jews. Every possible bed and board was filled during the weeks of the great feasts, and charges would have been HUGE!
The people were welcoming what they've always welcomed......... the money coming in. When the visitors were leaving they'd been fleeced. And the Jews of Jerusalem looked down on the trash from the North...... for sure.

Typical example from this age. When the bombs went off in LOndon on 7-7-05 all road, rail and other travel out of London crunched to a halt.
And guess what? All the Hotels tripled their prices on the spot, on that day. Money.
I know because I was up there but I always had a folding bike when I travelled by train, so I cycled out of Maida Vale, down thru London and out to Dartford near where my in-laws live. I saw it all......... People just rushed to make money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
Sady, I feel sure that's not so. I wonder if anyone has researched this?
There's some interesting statistics here, including life expectancy in Ancient Rome:
"... Those tell us that as many as one-third of infants died before the age of one, and half of children before age 10. After that age your chances got significantly better. If you made it to 60, you’d probably live to be 70.
Taken altogether, life span in ancient Rome probably wasn’t much different from today."

Generally, it seems the Biblical 'threescore years and ten' of Leviticus is reasonable, if you survived childhood, disease and injury.

Psalm 90 says: "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."
So if the real age was around fifty, this would undermine the whole psalm.

In the 1st Century, Pliny devoted an entire chapter of The Natural History to people who lived longest. Among them he lists the consul M Valerius Corvinos (100 years), Cicero’s wife Terentia (103), a woman named Clodia (115 – and who had 15 children along the way), and the actress Lucceia who performed on stage at 100 years old."

I see no reason to assume that John, who might have been ten years younger then Jesus, was around between 70-90AD to oversee if not actually dictate his gospel. Accidents aside, the fisherman's life is healthy – hard work indeed – but injury or drowning aside, a full life could be expected.

I just cannot figure out how he produced the timeline that he did...
have you looked into it?

... no Christian had ever been able to tell me what Jesus and his disciples did in the Temple during that last Palm Sunday.
He'd only arrived in Jerusalem that day?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
I accept your opinion, but my opinion is that the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding townships got very fat from ripping off the visiting Jews.
OK, but that does not mean there wasn't a popular support for Jesus. People are always ready to cash-in, but it's a bit of a leap to suppose that everyone who'd gone to see Jesus enter the city was there to make a buck.

They went sightseeing, in the Temple, for the day. It was a big place.
More than sightseeing, perhaps...

This clear report shows me that this group didn't go to the Temple very often, maybe once a year or even less.
Well the Synoptics has but one visit. John has three.

Some Northern Jews ...
OK, but I don't see the relevance.

Mark has Jesus arrive on Sunday, then visit the temple the next day. Matthew and Luke, using mark, flow it in without delineating which day?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
409
Points
83
More than sightseeing, perhaps...
Looking around at everything.....we call that sightseeing today .

Well the Synoptics has but one visit. John has three.
Yes, Mark has Jesus going to the Temple three times during one feast.
I don't believe that Jesus went to three feasts there in his campaign, nor that it lasted three years. I just follow G-Mark for a timeline, but that's just me .

Mark has Jesus arrive on Sunday, then visit the temple the next day. Matthew and Luke, using mark, flow it in without delineating which day?
You've got that wrong, Thomas. Jesus and his all went to the Temple on that Palm Sunday and spent the day looking about..... a bit like what we call sightseeing.

I've never met a Christian who has known about this, maybe because John is focused upon more closely than Mark. ???
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,320
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Jesus and his all went to the Temple on that Palm Sunday and spent the day looking about..... a bit like what we call sightseeing.
Ummm .. I would have thought that they went to the temple for worship.
Worship is not limited to "a service", particularly in the most important "synagogue" of all..
i.e. Jerusalem. :)
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
You've got that wrong, Thomas. Jesus and his all went to the Temple on that Palm Sunday and spent the day looking about..... a bit like what we call sightseeing.
Evidence?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
(Mark 11:11 KJV)

Perhaps they first went to the temple to pray and then went sightseeing around Jerusalem? I'm still not sure of the significance?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
Ummm .. I would have thought that they went to the temple for worship.
Worship is not limited to "a service", particularly in the most important "synagogue" of all.. i.e. Jerusalem. :)
Quite! Pilgrims performing Hajj (is that a right way of putting it?) might do a bit of sightseeing, but that's not the primary reason.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
2,770
Points
108
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
(Mark 11:11 KJV)

Quite. I think when 'he looked round about' there was a lot more than sightseeing going on.
 
Top