• 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

sooda

Veteran Member
Interpreting Text - PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON
PHILOSOPHY DUNGEONinterpreting-text.html
Luke is usually regarded as the last of the Synoptic Gospels to be written. It does not claim to be an eyewitness account but instead introduces itself as a report gathered from people who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1: 1-4). It is written in a good standard of Greek for an educated audience but it only has a hazy understanding of the geography of Palestine.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Professor David Gooding, in his commentary on Luke’s Gospel, puts this verse in proper perspective.

Your own link refutes the claim of geographical 'error!'

The problem can be resolved if a careful examination of the beginning of the Luke Travel Narrative is made. 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. He says: “We should at once notice carefully what the goal of the journey is said to be. It is sometimes stated on the basis of 9:51 that our Lord’s goal on this journey was Jerusalem. But this is not so. Our Lord’s journey certainly lay via Jerusalem; but the goal of the journey was what Luke describes as ‘being received up’. The phrase has the same sense as that given by the early Christian hymn quoted by Paul (I Tim. 3:16) which says that Christ ‘ was believed on in the world, received up in glory’. In other words by ‘being received up’ Luke is referring to Christ’s ascension into heaven. That and no less was the goal of the journey” (1987:179). If Dr. Gooding is correct, and I believe he is, then the Lord Jesus could take three of four journeys to Jerusalem and Luke would be perfectly correct in his chronology and geography.

Why do you post links claiming, 'error!', when they refute the accusation of error? Bluff? Propaganda? Reading comprehension?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
but it only has a hazy understanding of the geography of Palestine.
Unevidenced assertion. All the other links and scholars you quote show otherwise. This is just an unevidenced, biased opinion, with no historical or scholarly basis.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Your own link refutes the claim of geographical 'error!'

The problem can be resolved if a careful examination of the beginning of the Luke Travel Narrative is made. 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. He says: “We should at once notice carefully what the goal of the journey is said to be. It is sometimes stated on the basis of 9:51 that our Lord’s goal on this journey was Jerusalem. But this is not so. Our Lord’s journey certainly lay via Jerusalem; but the goal of the journey was what Luke describes as ‘being received up’. The phrase has the same sense as that given by the early Christian hymn quoted by Paul (I Tim. 3:16) which says that Christ ‘ was believed on in the world, received up in glory’. In other words by ‘being received up’ Luke is referring to Christ’s ascension into heaven. That and no less was the goal of the journey” (1987:179). If Dr. Gooding is correct, and I believe he is, then the Lord Jesus could take three of four journeys to Jerusalem and Luke would be perfectly correct in his chronology and geography.

Why do you post links claiming, 'error!', when they refute the accusation of error? Bluff? Propaganda? Reading comprehension?

Perhaps Gooding doesn't know that everything is "up to Jerusalem"..

The elevation of Jerusalem is between 2,133 – 2,756 feet (650 - 840 meters) above sea level. The elevation of Jericho is 853 feet (260 meters) below sea level. Even at the lowest point of Jerusalem there is still a difference of 2,986 feet (498 meters) in elevation between the two cities.
 

Spartan

Well-Known 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

"Sidon most certainly does appear to be out of the way if Jesus were going directly back northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee from which he had come. But Mark 7:31 indicates that he looped around and approached the southeast shore of the Sea of Galilee through the region called Decapolis. If you view the Sea of Galilee as a clock, Decapolis (Greek for "ten cities") was a region which bordered the sea from 3:00 to about 6:00.

Orthodox Jews did not normally travel in this area because the region was almost entirely inhabited by Gentiles and Hellenized Jews. Jesus, however, brought his disciples here immediately after their time in the regions of Tyre and Sidon. Now, an important question: What did these two regions have in common?

What they had in common was lots of Gentiles. Since Jesus is reported to have spent most of his ministry in Jewish territory, it is significant that these areas should be linked together. What Matthew and Mark are probably saying is that Jesus took his disciples on one last ministry tour through the Gentile regions. This mission would set a precedent for the disciples’ later concern regarding being His witnesses ‘even to the remotest part of them earth,’ even among the Gentiles. Beginning on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, they would have traveled northwest to Tyre, northeast to Sidon, southeast to the region of Decapolis, and west to the Sea of Galilee. Far from showing ‘a lamentable ignorance’ of the geography of Palestine, the passage helps explain why Jesus did not go directly back to the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, the location identified as his home.

Wilson’ further contention that there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee is likewise immaterial. The gospels report numerous occasions where Jesus was going up mountains or into the wilderness to pray, and he consistently conducted his ministry in rural areas. There is therefore no reason why Jesus and the disciples could not have walked the less than twenty miles from Sidon to the Valley of Lebanon. Their route along with the south side of Mount Lebanon would not have been too difficult. Only further north are the mountains of Lebanon imposing. This route would have allowed Jesus and is disciples a more direct path around to the southeast side of Galilee." (Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us Evidence For the Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN 1993], pp. 209-210; bold emphasis ours)" Responses to Bismikaallahuma : Geographical Errors Within The New Testament [Part 2]

So, no contradiction.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
You would know if you did your homework.

Here's INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for who wrote the Gospels.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship
A good excerpt, from that link:

With respect to Gospel titles such as “the Gospel of Matthew” there is no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were ever circulating without them. Scholars have asserted that the titles emerged sometime in the beginning or mid 2nd century but other scholars challenge this by noting that this presupposes anonymous Gospels to begin with as well as the works of early to mid 2nd century church writers representing the earliest stages of author attribution. This is an assumption one can not prove, however. Scholars also point out that when early New Testament churches began reading multiple Gospels around A.D. 100 it would be necessary that they be distinguished referentially from one another in the service to avoid confusion. Likewise noted is the fact that there is no recorded 1st or 2nd century competing hypothesis regarding who wrote Matthew. This lends credibility to the case for Matthew always having that title for if it were anonymous even after Gospel collection with no title and circulating as such up until the time of the early to mid 2nd century then there would emerge competing authorship theories. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any such competing theories indicating that the title "the Gospel of Matthew" is very primitive and that Matthaean authorship was affirmed in the earliest strands of Christian thought.
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Interpreting Text - PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON
PHILOSOPHY DUNGEONinterpreting-text.html
Luke is usually regarded as the last of the Synoptic Gospels to be written. It does not claim to be an eyewitness account but instead introduces itself as a report gathered from people who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1: 1-4). It is written in a good standard of Greek for an educated audience but it only has a hazy understanding of the geography of Palestine.

So far you haven't proven that Luke's geography is bogus. Your previous example failed.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
"Sidon most certainly does appear to be out of the way if Jesus were going directly back northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee from which he had come. But Mark 7:31 indicates that he looped around and approached the southeast shore of the Sea of Galilee through the region called Decapolis. If you view the Sea of Galilee as a clock, Decapolis (Greek for "ten cities") was a region which bordered the sea from 3:00 to about 6:00.

Orthodox Jews did not normally travel in this area because the region was almost entirely inhabited by Gentiles and Hellenized Jews. Jesus, however, brought his disciples here immediately after their time in the regions of Tyre and Sidon. Now, an important question: What did these two regions have in common?

What they had in common was lots of Gentiles. Since Jesus is reported to have spent most of his ministry in Jewish territory, it is significant that these areas should be linked together. What Matthew and Mark are probably saying is that Jesus took his disciples on one last ministry tour through the Gentile regions. This mission would set a precedent for the disciples’ later concern regarding being His witnesses ‘even to the remotest part of them earth,’ even among the Gentiles. Beginning on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, they would have traveled northwest to Tyre, northeast to Sidon, southeast to the region of Decapolis, and west to the Sea of Galilee. Far from showing ‘a lamentable ignorance’ of the geography of Palestine, the passage helps explain why Jesus did not go directly back to the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, the location identified as his home.

Wilson’ further contention that there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee is likewise immaterial. The gospels report numerous occasions where Jesus was going up mountains or into the wilderness to pray, and he consistently conducted his ministry in rural areas. There is therefore no reason why Jesus and the disciples could not have walked the less than twenty miles from Sidon to the Valley of Lebanon. Their route along with the south side of Mount Lebanon would not have been too difficult. Only further north are the mountains of Lebanon imposing. This route would have allowed Jesus and is disciples a more direct path around to the southeast side of Galilee." (Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us Evidence For the Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN 1993], pp. 209-210; bold emphasis ours)" Responses to Bismikaallahuma : Geographical Errors Within The New Testament [Part 2]

So, no contradiction.

220px-Thedecapolis.png
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Perhaps Gooding doesn't know that everything is "up to Jerusalem"..

The elevation of Jerusalem is between 2,133 – 2,756 feet (650 - 840 meters) above sea level. The elevation of Jericho is 853 feet (260 meters) below sea level. Even at the lowest point of Jerusalem there is still a difference of 2,986 feet (498 meters) in elevation between the two cities.
Seriously? First you quote Gooding as your authority of 'error!', now you dismiss him because you assert the English translation of 'up', refers to elevation, in the Greek.

/shakes head/

This is absurd desperation, not valid criticism.

"Let's go up town.."

"Aha! Gotcha! 'Town' is not at a higher elevation. You are ignorant and deceived, lying about geography!!"

:rolleyes:
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Seriously? First you quote Gooding as your authority of 'error!', now you dismiss him because you assert the English translation of 'up', refers to elevation, in the Greek.

/shakes head/

This is absurd desperation, not valid criticism.

"Let's go up town.."

"Aha! Gotcha! 'Town' is not at a higher elevation. You are ignorant and deceived, lying about geography!!"

:rolleyes:

All roads to Jerusalem go UP..
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
All roads to Jerusalem go UP..
'All roads lead to Rome'

"Two roads diverged in a wood and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." ~Robert Frost

"Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason." ~Jerry Seinfeld

There are always ups and downs, in life. And, there is forward and backward in any journey. The Destination is what matters. Quibbling about geography and elevation only distracts from the goal.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
'All roads lead to Rome'

"Two roads diverged in a wood and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." ~Robert Frost

"Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason." ~Jerry Seinfeld

There are always ups and downs, in life. And, there is forward and backward in any journey. The Destination is what matters. Quibbling about geography and elevation only distracts from the goal.

LOLOL.. Its all uphill to Jerusalem. You should know that much.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
"Since the late second century CE, the Gospel of John … has been attributed to the apostle John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. according to one church tradition, John eventually settled in Ephesus … writing his Gospel, three letters, and the book of Revelation. These five works are known collectively as the 'Johanine literature.'
The tradition ascribing authorship to the son of Zebedee is relatively late. Before about 180 CE, church writers do not mention the Gospel's existence. After that date, some leading churchmen accept it as John's composition, although others doubt its authenticity. Some even suggest that it was the work of Cerinthus, a Gnostic teacher.
PROBLEMS WITH THE TRADITIONAL THEORY
Most contemporary scholars doubt that the apostle John wrote the document bearing his name. Most scholars are also skeptical that the same author wrote all of the Johanine literature. The Gospel itself does not mention the author's identity, stating instead that it is based on the testimony of an anonymous disciple 'whom Jesus loved.' Tradition identifies this 'Beloved Disciple' with John (whose name does not appear in the Gospel), but scholars can find no evidence to substantiate this claim.
Some critics propose that another John, prominent in the church at Ephesus about 100 CE, is the author. Except that he was called 'John the Elder' (presbyter), we know nothing that would connect him with the Johanine writings. Lacking definite confirmation of traditional authorship, scholars regard the work as anonymous. For convenience, we refer to the author as John." (Emphasis mine)

Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, Fourth Edition (2002 The McGraw;Hill Companies, Inc.) pp. 109-110

Other noteworthy and respected commentaries reflect this analysis, as well.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
"Since the late second century CE, the Gospel of John … has been attributed to the apostle John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. according to one church tradition, John eventually settled in Ephesus … writing his Gospel, three letters, and the book of Revelation. These five works are known collectively as the 'Johanine literature.'
The tradition ascribing authorship to the son of Zebedee is relatively late. Before about 180 CE, church writers do not mention the Gospel's existence. After that date, some leading churchmen accept it as John's composition, although others doubt its authenticity. Some even suggest that it was the work of Cerinthus, a Gnostic teacher.
PROBLEMS WITH THE TRADITIONAL THEORY
Most contemporary scholars doubt that the apostle John wrote the document bearing his name. Most scholars are also skeptical that the same author wrote all of the Johanine literature. The Gospel itself does not mention the author's identity, stating instead that it is based on the testimony of an anonymous disciple 'whom Jesus loved.' Tradition identifies this 'Beloved Disciple' with John (whose name does not appear in the Gospel), but scholars can find no evidence to substantiate this claim.
Some critics propose that another John, prominent in the church at Ephesus about 100 CE, is the author. Except that he was called 'John the Elder' (presbyter), we know nothing that would connect him with the Johanine writings. Lacking definite confirmation of traditional authorship, scholars regard the work as anonymous. For convenience, we refer to the author as John." (Emphasis mine)

Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, Fourth Edition (2002 The McGraw;Hill Companies, Inc.) pp. 109-110

Other noteworthy and respected commentaries reflect this analysis, as well.

based on the testimony of an anonymous disciple 'whom Jesus loved.'

That is so loose that it could apply to nearly anyone at
any time.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You would know if you did your homework.

Here's INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for who wrote the Gospels.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship
Yah, Keith Thompson is founder and board chair of Ravi Zacharias Ministries International. He is associated with Reformed Apologetics Ministries. IOW, he's a fundamental apologist with biased viewpoints. Apologetics is a different discipline from exegesis (which is the discipline used to determine things like authorship of a text). Your argument fails on that basis alone.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.
You have been shown how my proposals are evident.
I just think that you are in deep denial.

Apostle John met with Ireneaus! He wrote his gospel in the 2nd century.

Not a disciple
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You have been shown how my proposals are evident.
I just think that you are in deep denial.

Apostle John met with Ireneaus! He wrote his gospel in the 2nd century.

Not a disciple

NAMING THE GOSPELS - World history
www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=145
Naming the Gospels: AD c.150: At some time during the second century the four Gospels acquire the names by which we now know them. Until this time they have been anonymous, thought of simply as the word of God. The names chosen for the evangelists ('bringers of good news' in Greek) are those of people who feature in the New Testament and who ...
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So you believe and assert.. without evidence.

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

The last ten verses of Mark are a fraudulent addition.
The first verse of Mark was meddled with.
These two examples to show how even the most trustworthy gospel was manipulated by Christians.

These findings are shown below, but if you dare to investigate for yourself then you will be on a journey of truth, and not falsehood.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus.


Mark 1 - New International Version (NIV) | Biblica
John the Baptist Prepares the Way
1The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

This ^^ was written in a Christian bible, NIV just as I claimed earlier. So if you call me liar you are calling Christians 'liar' as well.
Let's see if you dare.... :shrug:
 
Top