• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Where can you find the bare bones facts on what is certain about John?


Saint John the Apostle | Biography, Facts, Writings ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-the-Apostle
May 17, 2019 · John was the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman, and Salome. John and his brother St. James were among the first disciples called by Jesus. In The Gospel According to Mark he is always mentioned after James and was no doubt the younger brother. His mother was among those women who ministered to the circle of disciples.

I think that the disciple, John BarZebedee was not the Apostle John who lived on Patmos in the early 2nd century and met Irenaeus.

And his (and his brother's) nickname 'Boanerges' did not necessarily mean 'Sons of thunder', it could have meant 'Sons of violence'.
And so the disciples were a hard bunch, Simon BarJona was 'rock' hard, Andrew BarJona had been with the Baptist, Simon the Zealot was just that, the Zebedee brothers could have been very tough, Judas had been a hired killer (Sicario imo)etc etc.....
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think that the disciple, John BarZebedee was not the Apostle John who lived on Patmos in the early 2nd century and met Irenaeus.

And his (and his brother's) nickname 'Boanerges' did not necessarily mean 'Sons of thunder', it could have meant 'Sons of violence'.
And so the disciples were a hard bunch, Simon BarJona was 'rock' hard, Andrew BarJona had been with the Baptist, Simon the Zealot was just that, the Zebedee brothers could have been very tough, Judas had been a hired killer (Sicario imo)etc etc.....
You're correct. John the apostle and John of Patmos (who is most likely the author of John) are two completely different people.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You do not get to redefine 'ad hominem' to support your debating style or tactics. Anything 'to the man', instead of 'to the topic', is ad hom.

The phrase he used was ad hom fallacy. He defined it properly elsewhere. You are using ad hom to mean any criticism of you, which you consistently interpret as insulting you.

And don't forget the point you ignored. You have been insulting your critics for pages while crying ad hom whenever you are disagreed with. You remember, don't you - the people who you say maliciously lie, smear, and spread false narratives about Christianity to damage it.

Proselytizing is a form of sales, and you need to understand the values and sensibilities of your target audience (or market to continue the sales metaphor) if you hope to be effective. How do you think your audience perceives you when you demean them like that?

Also, this group requires a certain debate etiquette and has certain rules of conduct that few of the people coming to persuade them understand. When you refuse to define what you consider an error or give an example of what would be an error if it appeared in scripture or anywhere else, you concede your claim.

Also, failing to effectively rebut a cogent argument is understood as a concession. You are always welcome to take up where you dropped the ball in the past, but until you do, the matter is settled in the eyes of those who judge debating by the standards used in a court of law. The last feasible argument that goes unrebutted or is unsuccessfully rebutted prevails.

If the defense attorney makes a claim of innocence, the prosecutor successfully rebuts the defense (perhaps by discrediting the alibi) and presents compelling evidence and argument in support of guilt, and if the defense ignores all of that and simply repeats what it said before unchanged as the apologist is so fond of doing, the defendant is likely to lose his case and go to prison.

Do you care how you are perceived by those who you try to convince? You should.

I will get to the point of ignoring posters who just distort my posts, accuse me falsely, and insult constantly.

I pledge to continue addressing your posts notwithstanding your distortions (you distorted ad hom fallacy), false accusations (smearing your critics), and insults. They don't bother me.

you do not recognize this ["he wasn't lying as a Young Earth Creationist, just deceived by his own mind"] as an ad hominem deflection? Evading evidence with cheap shots?

No, I consider it what Morton told us in his own words. He described a psychological deception using the literary device of a demon to anthropomorphize the faith-based confirmation bias that had previously controlled what evidence he could see.

By the way, isn't it you taking the cheap shot - at me? I evaded no evidence and took no cheap shot. What I recognize is that you have a double standard for behavior you will permit yourself to indulge in, and that which you will tolerate from others.

The flood myth is easily disproved. But not to you, of course. The demon just won't let you see the evidence that is plainly visible to most of your audience.

Nothing has been 'proved!', or 'disproved!', here.. just asserted

Proof is that which convinces, and I, like millions of other reason and evidence based thinkers, am convinced that the global flood story is mythical. There is too much evidence to rename here, and it would be pointless to repeat it all. We've seen it. You can't.

I've already explained to you how you appear when you say that you see no evidence to people that do see it. I've also already explained to you that I see you and many other religious apologists as victims of Morton's demon, and until such time as you persuasively rebut Morton's contention, every time you tell me you don't see the evidence, my answer will be that I know. You can't. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist for you.

Have you considered the impression you are making with those who can see the evidence invisible to you? You probably aren't even willing to consider that others see evidence you don't, or how you would appear if that were the case. Would you want to know this if it were true?

[crickets]

I'm not surprised that you ignored this. You ignore most difficult comments and questions.

Whenever a person is asked his opinion and refuses to give it, one must decide for himself what was most likely meant. My best guess is that you wouldn't want to know if you were wrong. It's not important to you.

What is your agenda? To pound the propaganda drum, and promote the lies and false narratives?

No. I'm here to correct your false claims. What lie are you accusing me of promoting? That there are errors in the Bible, or that you exaggerate legitimate criticisms and observations about Christianity and then call the claims you invented ridiculous. Neither of those is a lie, and you haven't attempted to rebut either one. I accepted that as a concession. What other option do I have given that unlike many others, I don't intend to re-ask a question ignored once already.

You can dismiss their historical and scholarly work if you wish, in favor of 2000 years removed speculations and smears from anti-christian sites.

I have never seen seen an anti-Christian site. I have seen pro-Christian sites, and educational sites that contradict some Christian beliefs, but none that exist to attack Christianity. If you mean sites like Talk Origins, they are not attacking Christianity. They are rebutting the fundamentalists' attack on life science as we here are rebutting your outlandish claims. That doesn't make us anti-Christian.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Right. There is no evidence that Judaism and Christianity happened, as described in the bible, with THOUSANDS of manuscripts, archaeological discoveries, extant corroboration, and millennia of careful, linear, scholarly research, but someone finds a post-it note, dated 5000bc, pretending to be the Real, Authentic, Truth of All Religions, and gullible anti-christian bigots eat it up like candy...

/shakes head/
Of course some of the Bible is historical, such as the ward and kings, etc. Jesus was probably a real person. I don't think anyone thinks the whole Bible is just stories.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You're correct. John the apostle and John of Patmos (who is most likely the author of John) are two completely different people.

Yep.......
Although G-John is full of helpful anecdotes, stories and info about the real Jesus, I perceive it as a bundle of docs and evidence which the Apostle (not having been there) could not place on an accurate timeline.

All kinds of info, stuff such as Judas' father's name, hence possibly 'Judas BenSimon' (I think he was a low-order Levite) or Judas BarSimon. etc etc.

But the stuff he wrote about 'the Jews' is a kind of humanitarian defamation imo, sickening............ but that's just my opinion.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
How old is the Earth? please tick your choice.
4.5billion years. 6 thousand years Zillion years.

13. The bible is full of errors.
Jesus was born:- please tick your choice.
Bethlehem 6AD. Bethlehem 4BC Somewhere in Galilee

I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.
Where has the civility been?
What information has been provided?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
And you are the one guilty of trying to redefine ad hominem. I can find numerous sources that explain it to you in depth. All you have is your poor misunderstanding based upon an equivocation fallacy. Here let me show you:
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Ah, you add 'abusive!' to try to dodge the exposė of ad hominem..

Nevertheless, in any debate, directing 'arguments' toward the 'man', is fallacious. Address the topic. The intelligence, education, understanding, hat size, race, creed, gender, or any personal traits are irrelevant, and to bring them up is an ad hominem fallacy.

But redefining that is a good dodge! ;)
And you don't need to read the link on Luke, but I thought that you might want to learn.
Yes, i want to learn.. teach me, Obi Wan, PLEASE!!
:D

..so your 'style' of instruction is to post a link.. like that says anything.. :rolleyes:
It tells me you do not have any points, reason, or arguments, and rely on somebody else to debate for you, by proxy.
:shrug:
But let's start with Luke. Have you read it? Where do you want to start? When do you think that Luke put's the date of Jesus?
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
I'll then examine it, and offer a rebuttal.
No, no, no. You believe in the mythical Jesus. You call any attempts to bring you back to reality "smearing". Correcting your false beliefs is not attacking Jesus. If anything that is your sin.
:facepalm: So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
Seems obvious to me that Irenaeus is reacting to Revelation teaching that it will happen soon.. within a generation so he starts concocting excuses and attacking gnostics.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence. This is just a prejudicial smear of someone who was closer to the words and events than most. You have no evidence for this biased projection on Irenaeus' psyche, just offer revisionist psychobabble to discredit him.
Luke doesn't know anything about the geography of Palestine..
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
I do not presume, I just study and gather what evidence there might be.
Then present it, if you dare.. assertions and accusations are not evidence.
I might have discovered more about Matthew than you, actually.
No....... the point is that the APOSTLE certainly was not the DISCIPLE. Not possibly.
1. Education & knowledge is not a competition.
2. They should be demonstrated, not asserted.
3. Re: John.. So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
The New International Version points out quite clearly that the earliest copies of the bible DID NOT INCLUDE THAT DECEPTIVE ADDITION.
Evidence this assertion, if you dare. You accuse and assert, but present NOTHING to examine or rebut.
Luke was not the author of the gospel that now bears his name.
:facepalm:
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
Luke's Gospel was originally anonymous, so the second-century Church Fathers decided to attribute it to the person they felt was most probably its author.
:facepalm:
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
Most of what Josephus said and the others you mention have been proved to be phonys.
the propagandists are going fast and furious today. Phony narratives and assertions are NOT evidence..
Where can you find the bare bones facts on what is certain about John?
um.. the biblical manuscripts, extant writings, and accounts from eyewitnesses?
What they cannot accept is that the Hebrews borrowed old stories from the cultures around them to create a history and identity for themselves AFTER the Babylonian exile.
What I cannot accept is false narratives, pounded repeatedly like propaganda, with NO EVIDENCE, this is just your biased, anti-christian opinion. It has no basis in fact.
Much of Psalms was lifted from the Canaanite culture of the Ugarit... predates the Hebrews.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
You're correct. John the apostle and John of Patmos (who is most likely the author of John) are two completely different people.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
Do you care how you are perceived by those who you try to convince? You should.
no, i care about Truth. I would rather be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling lies.

How does this reply apply to the topic? It is an ad hom deflection.
I have never seen seen an anti-Christian site. I have seen pro-Christian sites, and educational sites that contradict some Christian beliefs,
people see what they want to see. The juggling of distortions, false narratives, innuendo, and allusion makes it pretty clear, what the agenda is..
Where has the civility been?
What information has been provided?
I'm still waiting for evidenced accusations. Ive quoted and referenced the historical, scholarly position of Christianity. And, I've exposed the false narratives and demeaning propaganda against Christianity.

I'll repeat the challenge:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.


All these narratives.. FALSE NARRATIVES.. are pounded over and over, as if loud repetition will convince people. Evidently, it does. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance every time the propaganda meme is mentioned.. no critical thinking.. no evidence.. just loud, repeated narratives, masquerading as 'fact!'

Open minded inquiry, reason, and systematic discovery are lost and dying concepts in a world built upon mandated belief and propaganda.

Believe what you wish. That does not make it true.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Ah, you add 'abusive!' to try to dodge the exposė of ad hominem..

Nevertheless, in any debate, directing 'arguments' toward the 'man', is fallacious. Address the topic. The intelligence, education, understanding, hat size, race, creed, gender, or any personal traits are irrelevant, and to bring them up is an ad hominem fallacy.

But redefining that is a good dodge! ;)

Yes, i want to learn.. teach me, Obi Wan, PLEASE!!
:D

..so your 'style' of instruction is to post a link.. like that says anything.. :rolleyes:
It tells me you do not have any points, reason, or arguments, and rely on somebody else to debate for you, by proxy.
:shrug:

1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
I'll then examine it, and offer a rebuttal.

:facepalm: So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence. This is just a prejudicial smear of someone who was closer to the words and events than most. You have no evidence for this biased projection on Irenaeus' psyche, just offer revisionist psychobabble to discredit him.

So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Then present it, if you dare.. assertions and accusations are not evidence.

1. Education & knowledge is not a competition.
2. They should be demonstrated, not asserted.
3. Re: John.. So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

Evidence this assertion, if you dare. You accuse and assert, but present NOTHING to examine or rebut.
:facepalm:
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
:facepalm:
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
the propagandists are going fast and furious today. Phony narratives and assertions are NOT evidence..
um.. the biblical manuscripts, extant writings, and accounts from eyewitnesses?

What I cannot accept is false narratives, pounded repeatedly like propaganda, with NO EVIDENCE, this is just your biased, anti-christian opinion. It has no basis in fact.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
no, i care about Truth. I would rather be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling lies.

How does this reply apply to the topic? It is an ad hom deflection.
people see what they want to see. The juggling of distortions, false narratives, innuendo, and allusion makes it pretty clear, what the agenda is..

I'm still waiting for evidenced accusations. Ive quoted and referenced the historical, scholarly position of Christianity. And, I've exposed the false narratives and demeaning propaganda against Christianity.

I'll repeat the challenge:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.


All these narratives.. FALSE NARRATIVES.. are pounded over and over, as if loud repetition will convince people. Evidently, it does. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance every time the propaganda meme is mentioned.. no critical thinking.. no evidence.. just loud, repeated narratives, masquerading as 'fact!'

Open minded inquiry, reason, and systematic discovery are lost and dying concepts in a world built upon mandated belief and propaganda.

Believe what you wish. That does not make it true.

They found thousands of clay tablets at Ras Shamra containing the Psalms that are much older than Abraham.

  1. Ugarit and the Bible - Ancient Hebrew Research Center
    www.ancient-hebrew.org/bible_ugarit.html
    Ugarit and the Bible ותאמר שויתי עזר על גבור הרימותי בחור מעם The passage above is Psalm 89:20 (19 in English Bibles) in Hebrew. This verse is literally translated as: "I placed help over the mighty, I lifted up the chosen one from the people".

  2. B425 Ugarit and the Bible - Quartz Hill School of Theology
    www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
    2. The Discovery of Ugarit and the Ugaritic Texts. In 1928 a group of French archaeologists journeyed with 7 camels, one donkey, and some burden bearers towards the tel known as Ras Shamra. After a week at the site they discovered a cemetery 150 meters from the Mediterranean Sea.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
They found thousands of clay tablets at Ras Shamra containing the Psalms that are much older than Abraham.
Speculation. You provide no analysis of the dating process, or any peer reviewed examination of the data. This is an opinion, likely motivated by desire for significance, or smear value.

Repeating it as 'fact!', is propaganda.

Edit:

Your own link refutes your assertion..

The city of Ugarit was occupied from pre-historic times to about 1200 BCE when it was mysteriously deserted. The tablets with the Ugarit cuneiform were written in its later life (about 1300 to 1200 BCE).

This is not, 'pre Abraham!'
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Speculation. You provide no analysis of the dating process, or any peer reviewed examination of the data. This is an opinion, likely motivated by desire for significance, or smear value.

Repeating it as 'fact!', is propaganda.

How many links do you need?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
How many links do you need?
Your own link refutes your assertion..

The city of Ugarit was occupied from pre-historic times to about 1200 BCE when it was mysteriously deserted. The tablets with the Ugarit cuneiform were written in its later life (about 1300 to 1200 BCE).

This is not, 'pre Abraham!'

It is a bluff to post a link, asserting it 'proves!' some accusation, when the reference does the opposite..
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
The evidence that the flood story is a myth is compelling, as is the evidence that the story predates the Hebrews' version. You and @usfan are each continually telling a gallery of people that all claim to have seen the evidence contradicting the myth that you see no evidence.

What do you expect the effect of such posting to be? I don't think that either of you understand how you appear telling those that see the evidence that you can't see it. Those aren't your words - you say it doesn't exist - but to people that have seen it, and these people are in agreement about what the evidence looks like and what it means, you're kind of like the king who thinks he is wearing fine array, telling the townspeople how well he dressed when they're looking at him standing there naked. If the king has no idea that others see something different, it can't work out well for him.

Evidence is what is evident, not what potentially may become evident in the future. The working hypothesis has to account for the facts in evidence at any given time, and the simplest explanation that accomplishes that is the provisionally preferred one.

If the oldest known version of a myth is Sumerian or Babylonian, then that is the oldest known version of the story. It's really that simple. If an older Hebrew manuscript surfaces, then that will be considered the oldest known version of the myth, and evidence-based thinkers will agree with what you have guessed correctly based on faith.

But until then, there is no agreement. The evidence-based and the faith-based beliefs are in contradiction. Those who decide what is true about reality from evidence will disagree with those who have chosen to believe by faith, that is, without evidence or against contradictory evidence based on faith.



He's not interested in the evidence that exists. He's interested in the "evidence" that he hopes will be found to support his faith-based belief.

Both of these guys clamor for evidence, but neither can see it, or so they tell us, and as I indicated, I believe them. They cannot see what you, I, and others not ensconsed in a faith-based confirmation bias can clearly see Hebrew myths derived from older Mesopotamian myths.



No, what she has is the archeology on the ancient manuscripts that date the various incarnations of the myth as they appeared in history.

What you have is a faith-based belief in contradiction to the evidence, meaning that it has already been provisionally disconfirmed to the evidence-based thinker pending uncovering additional evidence that leads to a new understanding.

What message do you get from that story?

The message to me is that a god alleged to be perfect was distraught with what mankind was, and rather than accept man as he was, or use His omnipotence to rewire man to His liking, he decided to exterminate almost all terrestrial life with a flood, which seems like a particularly terrifying way to nearly sterilize the earth.

We can imagine animals seeking higher ground until there was no higher ground, the water levels rising over their heads as they crane their necks in terror for their last breaths before inhaling water and dying. This is what this good god allegedly did to the creatures of earth. What would a devil have done?

And to what purpose? To restock the earth using exactly the same breeding stock in the hope that things will turn out better the second time. Maybe man won't be a sinner this time.

Did I miss something? What did you get out of it?

Believe Jesus? You mean believe the words attributed to him. No, I don't believe any of that. I don't say that it didn't happen, just that the only evidence for it - hearsay testimony from anonymous sources of unknown agendas and character - is too weak to be persuasive.

You don't seem to understand that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is accurate. To the skeptic, scripture is evidence of nothing except that it was written a very long time ago by people with a primitive understanding of their world. So telling unbelievers that one part of scripture confirms another part doesn't gain traction.

I stand by what I previously posted.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Show me your best one (1 - just one) example of where he was wrong? Cite the scripture # and your argument.

Bear with me. Mark had the same problem as Luke.


“As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you,’Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.'” They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” They answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve.” (Mark 11:1-11)

In Mark 10:46 however, we read that Jesus was in Jericho. The sentence above shows that Jesus and his group were travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and then Bethany. This, however, is quite impossible. Bethany is further away from Jerusalem than Bethphage is. The Biblical theologian, D.E. Nineham, comments:

The geographical details make an impression of awkwardness, especially as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them…and we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road…
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The Luke Travel Narrative (Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:47) | online library of brethren writers

Mark: failed geography, but great bible student - Vridar
Mark: failed geography, but great bible studentfailed-geography-but-great-bible-student
Image via Wikipedia Much has been said about Mark's poor knowledge of the geography of Palestine. A classic case is his bizarre itinerary for Jesus leaving Tyre to go north, then south-east, then back east again, to reach is final destination. On the map here, locate Tyre, run your finger north to
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Bear with me. Mark had the same problem as Luke.

“As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you,’Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.'” They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” They answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve.” (Mark 11:1-11)

In Mark 10:46 however, we read that Jesus was in Jericho. The sentence above shows that Jesus and his group were travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and then Bethany. This, however, is quite impossible. Bethany is further away from Jerusalem than Bethphage is. The Biblical theologian, D.E. Nineham, comments:

The geographical details make an impression of awkwardness, especially as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them…and we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road…

Well first of all, this says nothing about whether Jesus traveled to those places, just what route was taken. From the following article: Responses to Bismikaallahuma : Geographical Errors Within The New Testament

"Since Mark nowhere says that Christ and his followers went to Bethpage AND THEN to Bethany, we see that the authors (critics) are really trying to desperately find an error."

Also, what if Jesus had more pressing business in Bethany and went there first anyway? So, no contradiction.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Well first of all, this says nothing about whether Jesus traveled to those places, just what route was taken. From the following article: Responses to Bismikaallahuma : Geographical Errors Within The New Testament

"Since Mark nowhere says that Christ and his followers went to Bethpage AND THEN to Bethany, we see that the authors (critics) are really trying to desperately find an error."

Also, what if Jesus had more pressing business in Bethany and went there first anyway? So, no contradiction.

The Luke Travel Narratives – Gordon Franz | Articles Links ...
21 | February | 2008 | Articles Links & Blogthe-luke-travel-narratives-gordon-franz
Feb 21, 2008 · The Historicity of the “Luke Travel Narrative”. Luke 9:51 says: “ Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him [the Lord Jesus] to be received up, that He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem … ” Professor David Gooding, in his commentary on Luke’s Gospel, puts this verse in proper perspective.
 
Top