Compare John 10:40:
He went away again across the Jordan (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου) to the place where John had
been baptizing at first, . . .
Jesus went from Capernaum—in the region of Galilee—to the region of Judea, and then across
the Jordan to the place where John the Baptist used to baptize people. There is no geographic
error here.

I was just reading this over and this isn't right either! He says Jesus went from Caperaum in Galilee to Judea and then across the Jordan. That's wrong! Jesus would have left Capernaum, traveled south around the Sea of Galilee and THEN cross the Jordan to skirt around Samaria which was hostile to Jews. He would go south along the Transjordan until he entered Perea and THERE he crosses at the place the Baptist apparently used to baptize people because the gospels say that John was baptizing in Judea and people from Jerusalem flocked to him on the banks of the river.

So when he crosses at Perea, Jesus is at or somewhere near where the Baptist started his ministry. This apologist misses the point. He says Jesus left Galilee and went to Judea. Well, it's not that easy! If you go south in Galilee, you will eventually run into Samaria and Jews were always careful to avoid Samaria by crossing the Jordan before they get there as I described.

So simply to say Jesus left Galilee and went to Judea misses the point of why Mark was wrong.

DB Roy wrote:Objection 3: Mark 10:1
And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, . . .
The Jordan river is the eastern boundary of Judea. Did Mark just say that Jesus, coming from
Capernaum, would have crossed the Jordan to go to Judea? Is this “theological geography,” as
claimed by some commentators? (See C. S. Mann, Mark (1986), p. 389.)
Paying closer attention to the text:
And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan (πέραν τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου), . . .
Compare John 10:40:
He went away again across the Jordan (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου) to the place where John had
been baptizing at first, . . .
Jesus went from Capernaum—in the region of Galilee—to the region of Judea, and then across
the Jordan to the place where John the Baptist used to baptize people. There is no geographic
error here.

So, we're to going fix Mark by appealing to John??

DB Roy wrote:I was just reading this over and this isn't right either! He says Jesus went from Caperaum in Galilee to Judea and then across the Jordan. That's wrong! Jesus would have left Capernaum, traveled south around the Sea of Galilee and THEN cross the Jordan to skirt around Samaria which was hostile to Jews. He would go south along the Transjordan until he entered Perea and THERE he crosses at the place the Baptist apparently used to baptize people because the gospels say that John was baptizing in Judea and people from Jerusalem flocked to him on the banks of the river.

So when he crosses at Perea, Jesus is at or somewhere near where the Baptist started his ministry. This apologist misses the point. He says Jesus left Galilee and went to Judea. Well, it's not that easy! If you go south in Galilee, you will eventually run into Samaria and Jews were always careful to avoid Samaria by crossing the Jordan before they get there as I described.

So simply to say Jesus left Galilee and went to Judea misses the point of why Mark was wrong.

First of all in John's gospel Jesus goes through Samaria not around it. Just because the Jews generally avoided Samaria doesn't mean Jesus conformed to the prejudices of the time which he certainly did not. Some commentators think that on the journey in Mark Jesus skirts Samaria but don't see a problem with this in terms of where he crossed the Jordan.

In John 10 Jesus leaves Jerusalem and crosses the Jordan to Bethabara. Mc Grew was making a point about the Greek phrase in both John and Mark meaning "went across". So John says he crossed to Bethabara where John first baptized and this is very specific.
It's strange how those who try to deny the historicity of the accounts miss these details such as of how John the Baptist first baptizied in a particular place. This is more like a record of real events.
You think you can rule out using different gospels in determining journeys, but they are all giving accounts of Jesus life and it's perfectly reasonable to make these comparisons and determinations in this way.

What has struck bible scholars is not the writers ignorance of the geography as you are trying to argue, but rather their detailed knowledge of it and the customs,names flora and fauna etc of the place and time.
There are those who try to argue for geographical errors and one such critic claims three including Mark 10-1 where no doubt you got it.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.php#101

http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/10-1.htm

http://www.generationword.com/notes/bib ... html#perea

Flann 5 wrote: First of all in John's gospel Jesus goes through Samaria not around it. Just because the Jews generally avoided Samaria doesn't mean Jesus conformed to the prejudices of the time which he certainly did not. Some commentators think that on the journey in Mark Jesus skirts Samaria but don't see a problem with this in terms of where he crossed the Jordan.

It was standard for Jews to avoid Samaria. And Jesus DID share the same prejudices as other people. Mark 7:

[26] The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
[27] But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
[28] And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
[29] And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

And if Jesus passed through Samaria in John, it still conflicts with Mark who tries to say he crossed around it but got the finer details wrong. Once you get those details wrong, it's a dead giveaway that you were never there or were there briefly but took lousy notes. Either way, how can you tell anyone what went on there 40 or 50 years before?

In John 10 Jesus leaves Jerusalem and crosses the Jordan to Bethabara. Mc Grew was making a point about the Greek phrase in both John and Mark meaning "went across". So John says he crossed to Bethabara where John first baptized and this is very specific.

Really? Because Bethabara only appears in the KJV. Other translations say it was Bethany. Some even try to say they are the same place but that's only to cover up the discrepancy. There isn't any evidence of it. So what was John very specific about--Bethabara or Bethany?

You think you can rule out using different gospels in determining journeys, but they are all giving accounts of Jesus life and it's perfectly reasonable to make these comparisons and determinations in this way.

You can use any gospel you want. That doesn't make it right. And when two or more gospels differ only one can be right or none of them are right but they can't all be right. The ones that are wrong are WRONG! And nothing changes that.

What has struck bible scholars is not the writers ignorance of the geography as you are trying to argue, but rather their detailed knowledge of it and the customs,names flora and fauna etc of the place and time.

You mean the apologists not the scholars. The scholars admit there are mistakes. The apologists will perform the most bizarre acrobatics to avoid admitting the obvious. You haven't yet admitted the bible has wrong information. What's the matter? Will it blow you little world apart to admit it?

There are those who try to argue for geographical errors and one such critic claims three including Mark 10-1 where no doubt you got it.

well, I certainly didn't get it from tektonics who think the bible is perfect and inerrant. If the info in the NT is wrong, it's wrong.

DB Roy wrote:It was standard for Jews to avoid Samaria. And Jesus DID share the same prejudices as other people. Mark 7:

[26] The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
[27] But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
[28] And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
[29] And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

And if Jesus passed through Samaria in John, it still conflicts with Mark who tries to say he crossed around it but got the finer details wrong. Once you get those details wrong, it's a dead giveaway that you were never there or were there briefly but took lousy notes. Either way, how can you tell anyone what went on there 40 or 50 years before?

Same old stuff which I've answered already. Jesus was sent as he said to the lost sheep of the of the house of Israel. He did heal her daughter and commended her for her faith. Later the apostles were told to preach the gospel to all nations beginning in Jerusalem.
The Jews were chosen by God and did have a privileged place but the gospel was for everyone.
Mark says he went to the region of Judea and doesn't actually say what route he took. From Luke we find the cleansing of the ten lepers, one a Samaritan, on the borders of Judea and Samaria.

The point is that Jesus did not have a problem entering Samaria as John says,though he may have skirted Samaria on the occasion when we are told the Samaritans did not receive him.

You invented an issue saying he would have automatically avoided Samaria but the gospels don't agree and the parable of the good Samaritan is a good indicator of whether Jesus shared their prejudice or not.

Interestingly when the Pharisees tried to insult Jesus by calling him a Samaritan and demon possessed he didn't respond to the Samaritan jibe, not even recognizing it as having any validity, but denied the demonic slur.

If by scholars you mean Burton Mack and the Jesus Seminar, well they are not mainstream at all.

Checking on Bethabara, the manuscript evidence indicates it should be Bethany.

So there were two places called Bethany which was not unusual for place names in Israel.
No archaeological evidence so far for this Bethany, but we have heard the same arguments before against the existence of Nazareth and Bethlehem and the sheep pool in John's gospel, as examples which were shown to be mistaken by subsequent archaeological discoveries.

Most of Israel has not and even cannot be excavated, particularly where there are towns and people currently in residence on potential sites.
www.biblehub.com/commentaries/john/1-28.htm

And on the thread topic, just who conspired with who to get Jesus crucified and get him out of the tomb alive? Let's have some details on how the Jewish religious leaders,Pontius Pilate,the Roman soldiers and the disciples conspired to put all this together.


You say it's bogus so explain how the conspiracy worked beyond your nonsensical and vague talk about a death simulating drug being substituted,(how and by whom?). And the Roman guards obligingly letting the disciples remove the stone and smuggle him out somehow.

He was crucified,and speared but still alive when bound and buried!
I don't expect an answer from you on this even though it's your thread title and topic.

Flann 5 wrote: Same old stuff which I've answered already. Jesus was sent as he said to the lost sheep of the of the house of Israel. He did heal her daughter and commended her for her faith.

He liked her answer that accepted she was a dog. And he still made that terrible statement to her. If a black woman walked up to Jesus and said, "Please help my daughter" and he responds, "I don't help people who aren't good enough to eat at the same table with me, Sambo." And she replies, "But we do the dishes when you're through." And Jesus says, "Hey, I like that answer! Go home to your daughter, she's cured." Who would deny the exchange was abominable?

Later the apostles were told to preach the gospel to all nations beginning in Jerusalem.

Uh...yeah. We all know how Christianity was spread around the world--with lots of love and goodwill towards all. My great-grandmother went to an Indian boarding school when she was a child in the 1880s because the govt decided what those savages needed was a good, stiff dose of Jesus. Maybe you should read about how those places were run. Jesus would have been proud, I'm sure.

In America, Christianity has made black people stupid and intolerant. Recently, a Satan statue was to be unveiled in Detroit and black Detroiters were outraged and they sounded exactly like KKK people talking about keeping blacks out of their neighborhoods and they did not like me pointing that out to them. One guy threatened to blow it up and the place that gave the Satanists permission to unveil the statue was threatened with boycotts and nasty phone calls and emails and finally had to back down. Eventually, they had to unveil it in a secret location. I kept asking, "What did Satanists ever do to you??" See, clergymen can fuck your kids in the ass and that's okay but don't you let Satanists set up a temple in my neighborhood or I'll burn the sonofabitch down!

I worked in an office once where they allowed Christian workers to have bible meetings during lunch break. One of the members was a black co-worker that I got along with very well and seemed like a really good person. One day I'm in the lunchroom while their meeting was going on and the subject of homosexuality came up and he started talking and everything was "faggots this and faggots that and faggots faggots faggots." I was very disappointed in him after that. I maintained a friendly business relationship but I did not otherwise associate with him from then on. I think if you're a Christian, you're supposed to speak respectfully of people. Lead by example. But, you see, they generally don't. None of the Christians sitting there when he started talking about "faggots" had a word of rebuke for him. They just sat there and let him speak. I would have been ashamed.

The Jews were chosen by God and did have a privileged place but the gospel was for everyone.

That means "We're free to shove it down anyone's throat."

Mark says he went to the region of Judea and doesn't actually say what route he took. From Luke we find the cleansing of the ten lepers, one a Samaritan, on the borders of Judea and Samaria.

Yeah, well, I guess the bible can say anything it wants, can't it?

The point is that Jesus did not have a problem entering Samaria as John says,though he may have skirted Samaria on the occasion when we are told the Samaritans did not receive him.

Well, how can we doubt that the gospel writers know what they're talking about when they demonstrate such mastery of the history and geography of Palestine and knowledge of Jewish law?

You invented an issue saying he would have automatically avoided Samaria but the gospels don't agree and the parable of the good Samaritan is a good indicator of whether Jesus shared their prejudice or not.

In one parable he said that a slave who does not do his master's bidding shall be beaten with many bruises. What a swell guy. And, of course, I must be wrong about Jesus skirting Samaria. Those gems of inerrancy, the gospels, say so.

Interestingly when the Pharisees tried to insult Jesus by calling him a Samaritan and demon possessed he didn't respond to the Samaritan jibe, not even recognizing it as having any validity, but denied the demonic slur.

That's because demons are real! Just ask the tooth fairy.

If by scholars you mean Burton Mack and the Jesus Seminar, well they are not mainstream at all.

Good. Glad to hear it. I detest everything mainstream--the watering hole for idiots.

And on the thread topic, just who conspired with who to get Jesus crucified and get him out of the tomb alive? Let's have some details on how the Jewish religious leaders,Pontius Pilate,the Roman soldiers and the disciples conspired to put all this together.

It's already explained. Not interested in taking your bait. Go back and read it.

You say it's bogus so explain how the conspiracy worked beyond your nonsensical and vague talk about a death simulating drug being substituted,(how and by whom?).

Already explained.

And the Roman guards obligingly letting the disciples remove the stone and smuggle him out somehow.

Already explained.

He was crucified,and speared but still alive when bound and buried!
I don't expect an answer from you on this

He wasn't speared. The Romans didn't spear crucifixion victims. You hung there until you died and the crows pecked at you. The same guy who claimed he was speared also said the earth went dark and the graves opened and the bodies of saints arose and walked among the people. Aside from what saints could possibly have preceded Jesus to his grave, how was the resurrected Jesus any different from them if he was raised in his flesh? Sounds like there were many resurrections that day! A record day for resurrections!

Still can't admit any of the gospels are wrong even when they contradict each other, can you?

even though it's your thread title and topic.

Last I checked, nobody forced you to participate on it so check your butthurt at the door, please.

DB Roy wrote:Uh...yeah. We all know how Christianity was spread around the world--with lots of love and goodwill towards all. My great-grandmother went to an Indian boarding school when she was a child in the 1880s because the govt decided what those savages needed was a good, stiff dose of Jesus. Maybe you should read about how those places were run. Jesus would have been proud, I'm sure.

It's obvious you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Actually I was in an industrial school run by a Catholic religious order from the age of ten to sixteen which was abusive.
I had to grow up and learn to distinguish between what some, not all religious people do and the Christ and Christianity of the N.T.

DB Roy wrote:Quote:
And on the thread topic, just who conspired with who to get Jesus crucified and get him out of the tomb alive? Let's have some details on how the Jewish religious leaders,Pontius Pilate,the Roman soldiers and the disciples conspired to put all this together.




It's already explained. Not interested in taking your bait. Go back and read it.

It's not explained. At one point you said Christ got himself crucified to start a religion. Now explain how the conspiracy works between Jesus and his disciples,the Jewish religious leaders,Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers.

You ignore the fact that it was a capital offense for a Roman soldier to allow anyone convicted rightly or wrongly of capital crime to escape.

You imagine these soldiers would just allow the disciples to remove the stone and walk in there. Your theory is not credible and the articles I linked give the reasons why.

You won't answer because you can't. You start up a thread on how the resurrection is bogus and just refuse to answer these questions while pretending you have answered them.

Flann 5 wrote: It's obvious you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Actually I was in an industrial school run by a Catholic religious order from the age of ten to sixteen which was abusive.
I had to grow up and learn to distinguish between what some, not all religious people do and the Christ and Christianity of the N.T.

That was your choice.

You ignore the fact that it was a capital offense for a Roman soldier to allow anyone convicted rightly or wrongly of capital crime to escape.

Already explained. Go back and read it.

You imagine these soldiers would just allow the disciples to remove the stone and walk in there. Your theory is not credible and the articles I linked give the reasons why.

Already explained.

You won't answer because you can't. You start up a thread on how the resurrection is bogus and just refuse to answer these questions while pretending you have answered them.

Already explained. I'm not going to keep repeating what I've already explained.

DB Roy wrote:That was your choice.



Quote:
You ignore the fact that it was a capital offense for a Roman soldier to allow anyone convicted rightly or wrongly of capital crime to escape.




Already explained. Go back and read it.

You can repeat your mantra as long as you like but you're not fooling anyone. You haven't explained how the conspiracy is agreed and worked out between Jesus and his disciples the Jewish religious leaders,Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers.

Besides you think that someone would actually have himself crucified to be rescued half dead by his disciples with a pretense of resurrection to start what he knew to be a false religion. And the co conspirators his disciples were willing to suffer and even die for what they knew to be a fraudulent claim of resurrection.

Where did you get your psychology degree?

Of course Pilate didn't want to have him executed and I suppose Jesus encouraged the chief priests to bay for his blood.

It just goes to show the ridiculous extremes anti-theists are prepared to go to in their hatred of Christianity.

You can believe in the ravings of astro-theology,gnostic self deification or sub-lunar crucifixion by archons, but wait it's all a fraudulent conspiracy anyway.

I know you are not going to get into any specifics because it's absurd and you know it. Your mantra is all we are going to get from you. Okay, but don't expect anyone to believe you.

I'll now let you resume your standard monologues into the void.

Flann wrote:You can believe in the ravings of astro-theology,gnostic self deification or sub-lunar crucifixion by archons, but wait it's all a fraudulent conspiracy anyway.

I know you are not going to get into any specifics because it's absurd and you know it.

this is a very interesting quote from you Flann

you say "it's absurd"

let's look at what you think is absurd

1.) astro-theology (see astrotheology thread) far from absurd.

2.) gnostic self deification

bible says

"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? 35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),…

my little children, of whom again I travail in birth, till Christ may be formed in you,

i'm not saying these passages teach gnostic self deification but surely they render it far from absurd



3.) sub-lunar crucifixion by archons

again just because you don't understand it doesn't render it absurd

6And yet I do speak of a wisdom for those who are mature, not a wisdom of this passing age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. 7I speak of God's secret wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and predestined by God for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of "the rulers of this age" (ton archonton tou aionos toutou, verses 6 and . In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66) puts it this way:

you may not get it or like it but it is far from absurd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag5-fJ7d-rM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzVbBmlsW-A