If the Bible is inspired by God why all the contridictions?

[Cleante]

Here is some information for you AgeofKnowledge.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
http://orthodoxcatechism.org/
Amazon.com: Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity (Faith Catechism) (9780964914117): Clark Carlton: Books
Orthodox Catechism
Catechism of the Greek Orthodox Faith
Canonical Orthodoxy

There are many more resources if you would search for them.

 

[serpentslayer]

Sutra,
The Bible is a most complex and comprehensive book, and it was written this way in order to confound the wise and crafty serpents (false religious teachers and preachers) of this world (Is28:7, 13). By Is., the Word was established 'precept upon precept, line upon line, a little here, a little there (v13), and this is the way it is to be 'put back together' if one is to learn the TRUTH (v9-10); however, it is clear from the fact that there are a multitude of 'christian' faiths, all who claim the same Lord and GOD but differ in doctrine, that men differ on how they divide the Word. Even more so, men have now translated the bible so that any almost any belief is possible. What do you what to believe? find a bible that confirms it.

So it is good that you question as you have done, in order to prove to yourself what is right and true; but, if you are truly seeking the Knowledge and Wisdom of GOD, you must first settle the question as to which Bible you may hold as containing the complete Truth. For if you have not a source which is authentic and you can stand firm on, then you can never be certain that what you believe is the truth is indeed the TRUTH. i recommend the KJV (1611) which has stood the test of time turning 400yrs next year, has been the chief bible used in evangelizing the world, and, as i believe, could be the fulfilling of prophesy (Is28:10). It is a little difficult to follow at first, but it gets easier. i would warn you to be careful of the commentary which many bibles contain, because these are the words of men mingled with the Word of God.

Rememeber: if u diligently seek the LORD (through HIS WORD - Bible), then u will find HIM, for Jesus gave us this promise (Mt7:7-11) and God does not want to hide from anyone but the wicked (2Pt2:9). Remember also that it is not perfect knowldege which saves you, but a perfected heart, which can only be so if Jesus lives in you. Were you not saved (if you profess such) being a 'babe' in Christ and one in need of Milk (Is28:9, 1Cor 3:1-3, Heb5:11-6:2)?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Cleante,

Don't go. Love you. I can be direct but I'm NOT trying to drive you or anyone else off brother and that is a fact.

I'm aware of the critical differences between Eastern and Western Catholic Orthodoxy. I had a friend out here that was an Eastern Orthodox priest for a short time before he moved and am well versed in church history.

You know where I stand: directly upon scripture uncorrupted (even when orthodox church members claim otherwise). I live Christianity as if I was a first century Christian as does the Christian assembly I attend. So we'll just agree to disagree on everything that comes between that (even when asserted that it doesn't but actually does) because I cannot allow anything to come between God and myself (even when it asserts it is enabling that process through it's rituals and traditions which actually get in the way). Obviously, I'm not going to allow anything, including an Eastern Orthodox priest and their insistence they are empowered to forgive my sin, to come between God and me. I have no place in my life for the nonsense of church tradition built on the teachings of men who skewed scripture. My priest is Jesus Christ himself and he is the highest priest.

With that said, I want you to know that I fully understand you are "in Christ" and that's why I call you brother and I also see your strong commitment to God within our Christian worldview. So I say keep posting and God bless you. We have a lot more in common than not. Basically we disagree on a lot of topics but are, in fact, on the same side. So peace and God bless YOU brother . Have a fantastic weekend! See you in chat.

-Age

P.S. point noted on John 19:14.

I knew I said I'd stop posting in this thread when it came to textual criticism, neither of us are going to agree. I fell compelled to address your post.

I would highly suggest you read the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. To use the word Catholic in the modern-day denominational sense to describe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just plain wrong. There are many, many, many differences between the Roman Catholic Church. From the procession of the Holy Spirit, to the doctrine of Original Sin. They split in 1054AD for a reason, you know? So, please get it right when you speak of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. They are not interchangeable.

When you speak of human decrees and pronouncements, I believe you are speaking of papal infallibility, something not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

As for Holy Tradition and dogma, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not believe that is a dynamic being, changing to fit the times.

• And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (Jn. 21:25)
• Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full (2 Jn. 1:12)
• Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (+215 AD) inform us: Those who explain Scripture without the help of the Churchs Tradition cut asunder the significance of truth (Stromatis, pg 7).
• The acts of the early Church, the witnesses of the company of the apostles, amongst whom are Saint Ignatius the God-bearer (+104 AD), a disciple of the Apostles and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (+106 AD). These Fathers admonished the faithful of their day to safeguard themselves from the teachings of heretics and to maintain in the full only the Apostolic Tradition (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2:36).
• Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thes 2:15)

I don't see a disagreement between what I posted in my translation of John 19:14 and what you have posted. Other than the fact that the NAS uses for, a postpositive conjuction, instead of the Genitive case (το&#965 article sense of belonging, of.

 

[Slepsog4]

none of those are true contradictions. you have failed to recognize the change of circumstances, covenants, etc.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Here is some information for you AgeofKnowledge.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
http://orthodoxcatechism.org/
Amazon.com: Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity (Faith Catechism) (9780964914117): Clark Carlton: Books
Orthodox Catechism
Catechism of the Greek Orthodox Faith
Canonical Orthodoxy

There are many more resources if you would search for them.

Ευχαριστώ

-Age

 

[Cleante]

Ευχαριστώ

-Age

Παρακαλώ. Enjoy.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Let me comment on John 19:14 since you brought it up.

Actually you brought it up in post 30… try to keep pace with your own arguments. (And if you are addressing it because I brought it up why wouldn't you address the other things I brought up too? Why just this one?)

ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη. καὶ λέγει τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, Ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν.

The first part, which I shall call part A, ends with Pascha. Pascha as we know it the Passover, in the Orthodox Church Pascha refers to what the Western Church knows as Easter. Παρασκευἡ is a nominal in the feminine. Now, since that it a nominal and τοῡ is a genitive article, there is no what that it could modify the Παρασκευἡ. The only choice left in part A is πἁσχα, which wouldn't decline into a genitive ending because it is a borrowed Hebrew word. Some borrowed words will decline, others will not. That is fact. Therefore, transliterated this verse would read, "Was but the preparation Of the Passover." The English translation you used got it wrong.

That is from the modern day Greek New Testament. But even the oldest surviving bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, would agree with me. This is taken directly from the codex itself. "
ην δε παραϲκευη
του παϲχα ωρα η
ωϲ εκτη και λεγει
τοιϲ ϊουδαιοιϲ ϊ
δε ο βαϲιλευϲ ϋμω"

Again, we see genitive case which would indicate that it was the day of preparation of the passover, not for. If the original writers wanted to use for instead of the genitive article, they knew what it was. They would have used the post-positive conjuction γἁρ which means for.

All I can say is wow… again, try to keep pace with your own arguments. Here is what you said in post 30:

"It is here where Pilate says, "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." This is found in John 19:14."

"according to John, IC dies a day earlier on the Day of the Preparation for the Passover…"​

The underlined portions I have highlighted myself.

Now read part of what I said in response to this (post 34):

"John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” and for some reason you think this means “Preparation for the Passover…” but that’s not what it says…"​

Again, the underlined portions I have highlighted myself.

So it doesn't look like you gave a rebuttal to anything I said post 34. All you did was assert the authority of Textual Critical scholars, give us an irrelevant quote from Metzger, and argue against yourself...

Thanks.

One of my majors in college was Bible, so I'm familiar with textual criticism and Metzger (I have his "A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament, as well as some AYB resources and make use of them on occasion). Textual criticism, as such, doesn't support the view of Scripture your supposing. Again, the assumption that if we just employ some textual criticism we will come to your conclusions looks a bit naïve.

I will no longer post on this specific thread.

Yes, I always take it as a rule of thumb that when I start debunking myself it's probably time to just move on...

 

[zone]

hey saint!
that was a really good, personalized and thoughtful response.
it clearly took a lot of time, and the work of The Holy Spirit in you.

good job!
z

 

[zone]

But not before God


This gets into the subject of the trinity

hey saint!
that was a really good, personalized and thoughtful response.
it clearly took a lot of time, and the work of The Holy Spirit in you.

good job!
z

[sorry, i should have connected tis to your post directly]

 

[zone]

As stated, God's Word has zero contradictions when taken in context with a proper systematic theological understanding. Enjoy this discussion by God and Science on some ramdomly chosen topics atheists often use to try and show God's Word contradicts itself (which it does not!):

False Teachings in the Bible?

Oh just as a hint atheists, stringing together large numbers of scriptures falsely asserting they constitute contradiction doesn't prove anything other than you aren't really serious about discussing it. Obviously, most Christians aren't going to answer fifty false assertions per post. Why not choose the one or two you think support your errored position the best and we'll refute them for you. Praise the Lord!

SAINT did it.
and quite well.

 

[zone]

I am highly doubtful that those who say there are no discrepancies in the Holy Scriptures have studied the scriptures in the historical-critical method nor the textual criticism method. If you ever read any of the Anchor Bible Commentaries, especially the Commentary on the Gospel According to John by Raymond Brown, the discrepancies are staring you in the face when you compare the different manuscripts, such as the LXX, Codex Sinaiaticus, and the Textus Receptus. I would suggest that you read these commentaries. They do not espouse any theological viewpoints. They only show the differences between the manuscripts.

The text-book example of New Testament discrepancies is the death of IC in Mark and John. Mark was probably the first gospel to be written, possibly authored sometime around 65-70AD. The first ten chapters of Mark deal with IC' public ministry in Galilee. It is during this time that IC teaches, heals the sick, casts out demons, and confronts the Pharisees. At the end of his life he journeys to Jerusalem in order to celebrate Passover. He is arrested and crucified.

What complicates this a little is the Jewish interpretation of time. The day begins at sundown. Therefore, the sabbath starts Friday evening at sundown and continues until the next day, which is sundown on Saturday evening. Before the Passover meal, the Jews would travel to Jerusalem to purchase a lamb from the temple and have it slaughtered by the priests on the Day of Preparation. The meal was prepared during the afternoon and the meal was eaten at night, which was the beginning of the next day and in this case Passover.

In Mark 14:12, His disciples ask Him where they should prepare for the passover meal in the evening and they are given instructions. It is during this meal that IC takes the bread, breaks it and declares, "This is my body." After the meal is concluded he took the wine cup and said, "This is my blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many." This occurs in Mark 14:22-25.

After the meal, they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Judas brings the soldiers and performs his act of betrayal. IC is then taken to stand trial before the Jews and spends the night in jail. The next morning He is tried by Pontius Pilate who condemns him to die on the cross. Mark tells us that He is crucified that same day, at nine o'clock in the morning. Therefore, according to Mark, IC dies on the day of the Passover, the morning after the Passover Meal.

This Gospel of John is at odds with the story told in the Gospel of Mark. Other than the fact that IC travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover feast, there is very little similarity. According to John, the disciples to not ask IC for instructions on where to prepare the feast, nor does IC provide them with any instructions. There is a last meal, but according to John, IC does not mention that the broken bread is His body or that the wine is His blood. Instead of this, IC washes his disciples feet, something that is found in no other Gospel. (John 13:1-20)

After they eat, they go out and IC is betrayed by Judas. He appears before the Jews and spends the night in Jail. He is tried by Pontius Pilate who condemns him to die by crucifixion. It is here where Pilate says, "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." This is found in John 19:14.

This directly contradicts Mark's Gospel. IC lived through the Day of Preparation. He had his disciples prepare the Passover meal. They ate it, he was betrayed. He was then arrested, taken to jail, tried by Pilate and condemned to death the next morning and was executed at nine o'clock in the morning on the passover day. However in the Gospel according to John, IC dies a day earlier on the Day of the Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

The most common way people seek to reconcile these differences is to say that Mark indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called "the Day of Preparation" which is found in Mark 15:42. While this is true, Mark does say this, the readers fail to notice that Mark tells us what he means by the phrase. It is the Day of Preparation for "The Sabbath." In other words, this is not the day before the Passover Meal but the day before the Sabbath. It is called the day of preparation because Jews had to rest on the sabbath and therefore had to prepare the meals the day before the sabbath.

having said all that Cleante,
i am curious as to how and when you celebrate/mark the death and resurrection?
do you call the period Passover, or Easter?

 

[Cleante]

Actually you brought it up in post 30… try to keep pace with your own arguments. (And if you are addressing it because I brought it up why wouldn't you address the other things I brought up too? Why just this one?)




All I can say is wow… again, try to keep pace with your own arguments. Here is what you said in post 30:

"It is here where Pilate says, "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." This is found in John 19:14."

"according to John, IC dies a day earlier on the Day of the Preparation for the Passover…"
​

The underlined portions I have highlighted myself.

Now read part of what I said in response to this (post 34):

"John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” and for some reason you think this means “Preparation for the Passover…” but that’s not what it says…"
​

Again, the underlined portions I have highlighted myself.

So it doesn't look like you gave a rebuttal to anything I said post 34. All you did was assert the authority of Textual Critical scholars, give us an irrelevant quote from Metzger, and argue against yourself...

Thanks.

One of my majors in college was Bible, so I'm familiar with textual criticism and Metzger (I have his "A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament, as well as some AYB resources and make use of them on occasion). Textual criticism, as such, doesn't support the view of Scripture your supposing. Again, the assumption that if we just employ some textual criticism we will come to your conclusions looks a bit naïve.



Yes, I always take it as a rule of thumb that when I start debunking myself it's probably time to just move on...

I'm not leaving the thread because I am starting to debunk myself. I am leaving because the topic is going no where. I understand that in my haste to make a rebuttal, I offered evidence that "debunked" the english translation. But the argument still stands.

This topic is like beating a dead horse with a stick. We will never reach an agreement, so it is pointless to keep posting. Unlike you, I'm not going to make snide comments and employ the use of sarcasm. Despite this, I would still call you my Western Brother in XC. Neither of us are the sole authority on scripture.

There are many of scholars who would agree wtih you, just like there are many of scholars who would agree with me. That is why I would agree to disagree and not assert that textual criticism does not support my claim. If it didn't, Bart D. Ehrman and various other scholars would not say what I am saying.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would be happy to do so through e-mail.

 

[zone]

I knew I said I'd stop posting in this thread when it came to textual criticism, neither of us are going to agree. I fell compelled to address your post.

I would highly suggest you read the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. To use the word Catholic in the modern-day denominational sense to describe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just plain wrong. There are many, many, many differences between the Roman Catholic Church. From the procession of the Holy Spirit, to the doctrine of Original Sin. They split in 1054AD for a reason, you know? So, please get it right when you speak of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. They are not interchangeable.

When you speak of human decrees and pronouncements, I believe you are speaking of papal infallibility, something not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

As for Holy Tradition and dogma, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not believe that is a dynamic being, changing to fit the times.

• And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (Jn. 21:25)
• Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full (2 Jn. 1:12)
• Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (+215 AD) inform us: Those who explain Scripture without the help of the Churchs Tradition cut asunder the significance of truth (Stromatis, pg 7).
• The acts of the early Church, the witnesses of the company of the apostles, amongst whom are Saint Ignatius the God-bearer (+104 AD), a disciple of the Apostles and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (+106 AD). These Fathers admonished the faithful of their day to safeguard themselves from the teachings of heretics and to maintain in the full only the Apostolic Tradition (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2:36).
• Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thes 2:15)

I don't see a disagreement between what I posted in my translation of John 19:14 and what you have posted. Other than the fact that the NAS uses for, a postpositive conjuction, instead of the Genitive case (το&#965 article sense of belonging, of.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[Cleante]

having said all that Cleante,
i am curious as to how and when you celebrate/mark the death and resurrection?
do you call the period Passover, or Easter?

Greetings Zone,

I celebrate Πἀσχα. The period leading up to the Holy Week is the Great Lent. The Holy Week consists of: Palm Sunday,
Holy Monday, in which the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts occur,
Holy Wednesday, which celebrates the mystery of holy Unction,
Holy Thursday, in which the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil with a Reserved Eucharist in representation of the earthly prescence of XC. In the evening, the reading of the Twelve Gospels is conducted. Twelve Gospels
Great and Holy Friday begins with reading of the Royal Hours leading up to the vespers of the afternoon. The priest then removes the Body of XC, wraps it in a white cloth and carries it into the altar. Then in the evning, it is placed in the sepulcher.
Great and Holy Saturday marks XC's descent into Hades.
Then Πἀσχα is celebrated.

I follow the tradition of the Orthodox Church and that is how I celebrate XC's death and ressurection.

"We will most easily come to a precise knowledge of true discernment if we follow the paths of our elders, if we do nothing novel, and if we do not presume to decide anything on the basis of our own private judgment. Instead let us in all things travel the road laid down for us by the tradition of our elders and by the goodness of their lives. Strengthened by this routine a person will not only reach the summit of discernment but he will remain completely safe from all the snares of the enemy... the spiritual life is unseen and hidden, open to only the purest heart. Here the fact of going wrong brings harm that is not of this world and that cannot be easily rectified. Rather, it causes the loss of the soul and an everlasting death. So then how stupid it is to believe that only this way of life has no need of a teacher."

It has, and will always be, the tradition of the Orthodox Church to celebrate XC death on Great and Holy Friday and his ressurection three days later on Πἀσχα.

 

[Saint]

hey saint!
that was a really good, personalized and thoughtful response.
it clearly took a lot of time, and the work of The Holy Spirit in you.

good job!
z

[sorry, i should have connected tis to your post directly]

thank you, zone, it did take a while, and for a second there, i thought no one had read it.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I'm not leaving the thread because I am starting to debunk myself. I am leaving because the topic is going no where. I understand that in my haste to make a rebuttal, I offered evidence that "debunked" the english translation. But the argument still stands.

This topic is like beating a dead horse with a stick. We will never reach an agreement, so it is pointless to keep posting. Unlike you, I'm not going to make snide comments and employ the use of sarcasm. Despite this, I would still call you my Western Brother in XC. Neither of us are the sole authority on scripture.

There are many of scholars who would agree wtih you, just like there are many of scholars who would agree with me. That is why I would agree to disagree and not assert that textual criticism does not support my claim. If it didn't, Bart D. Ehrman and various other scholars would not say what I am saying.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would be happy to do so through e-mail.

Sorry, but I can't let you off the hook that easy, not when someone, a fellow Christian no less, attacks the integrity of Scripture.

What you debunked was your earlier claim. You are the one who made the claim in post # 30 that John 19:14 said "for the Passover" and you are the one who tried to pawn this off as a contradiction.

I claimed it didn't say "for" but "of" and that it wasn't a contradiction. I also showed how your other claims of contradictions are not contradictions.

In response you ignored most of what I said and tried to address the John 19:14 issue, but you either got yourself confused or you deliberately tried to spin the issue into something it wasn't.

You claimed that the translation I used is wrong, but I didn't use the translation at all, I was simply quoting you!

You then proceeded to demonstrate not that I was mistaken but that your own earlier comments in post # 30 were wrong. The only thing that stands is your argument against yourself.

The proper thing for you to do at this point is simply admit that you made a mistake and that the passages you attacked as contradictory are not. I can understand why an atheist wouldn't do this and would try to save face, but as a Christian you should rather be happy to find Scripture proven true, even at your expense.

 

[machew]

The Bible was intentionally inspired to be written in a way that it would be a stumbling block for those who needed to understand it fully before they could believe in it. The Bible tells us that knowledge puffs up(1 Cor 8:1), and that God vehemently resists the proud but gives Grace to the humble(1 Pet 5:5,Ja 4:6). The Bible also says that we are saved by Grace through faith (Eph 2:8)

Ephesians 2:8(NASB)

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

So what does this tell us? The only way to be saved is to receive Grace from God. It is a gift of God. But if you are prideful or proud about your knowledge, needing to understand everything 100 % (be able to control everything) before you accept it, then God actually resists you from receiving any Grace to be saved. People are saved by Grace through faith. So if the reason you are saved is because of your understanding then you are not saved. You have to be saved by faith! If you "understand" everything then you are not living on faith. The irony in all this is that you only begin to understand everything after you get saved and approach everything in faith. Without receiving the Holy Spirit (when you get saved) the Bible is a closed book for those who want to understand.

God intentionally put things in there that seem contradictory to keep the proud away. I know it sounds harsh, but it really isn't. God hides knowledge for us (not from us), because we are accountable and responsible to the level of revelation we possess. If we are not at a place where we would be responsible with what we know, then God would inevitably have to make us accountable for it with negative results. He is a just God and must judge everything justly. In His mercy He doesn't reveal anything more to us than we are ready to be responsible for. So in His mercy He wrote the Bible in a way that people who aren't ready to humble themselves, won't understand no matter how much they study it


Hopefully this makes sense.


Blessings,

Machew

 

[Cleante]

Sorry, but I can't let you off the hook that easy, not when someone, a fellow Christian no less, attacks the integrity of Scripture.

What you debunked was your earlier claim. You are the one who made the claim in post # 30 that John 19:14 said "for the Passover" and you are the one who tried to pawn this off as a contradiction.

I claimed it didn't say "for" but "of" and that it wasn't a contradiction. I also showed how your other claims of contradictions are not contradictions.

In response you ignored most of what I said and tried to address the John 19:14 issue, but you either got yourself confused or you deliberately tried to spin the issue into something it wasn't.

You claimed that the translation I used is wrong, but I didn't use the translation at all, I was simply quoting you!

You then proceeded to demonstrate not that I was mistaken but that your own earlier comments in post # 30 were wrong. The only thing that stands is your argument against yourself.

The proper thing for you to do at this point is simply admit that you made a mistake and that the passages you attacked as contradictory are not. I can understand why an atheist wouldn't do this and would try to save face, but as a Christian you should rather be happy to find Scripture proven true, even at your expense.

Agree to disagree. A very simple phrase that does not seem to be in your repertoire. Again, if you want to learn more, about my argument that is, read Bart Ehrman and similar scholars.

 

[Cleante]

Also, I was confused when I read your post and I thought I had apologized for that. I do apologize for the confusion. However, the use of the genitive τοὐ modifying πἀσχα makes it very clear that the day of preparation belonged to the Passover, not the sabbath. The author could have easily inserted sabbath instead of passover if that is what he meant. Mark states that IC lived through the day of Preparation of the Passover, while John states that IC died on the day of Preparation of the passover.

Besides, the times on Jesus' death do not harmonize. Was it noon or nine o'clock in the morning? What do you say of that?

I will also submit that the Gospel According to John has also been heavily edited throughout the ages. For example, the Hymn to the Logos was a pre-existing hymn and the verses that talk about John the Baptist were added at a later date. This can easily be determined by examining the stylistic differences between the original verses and the added verses.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, I always take it as a rule of thumb that when I start debunking myself it's probably time to just move on...

Our orthodox brothers and sisters truly limit themselves strictly within the framework of their respective churches doctrine. Still if the they are born of spirit the Lord has put a new heart and His spirit in them and they are among the Beloved. PRAISE THE LORD FOR THAT!