If the Bible is inspired by God why all the contridictions?
- Thread starter Sutra
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Not when it's being used as a cheap out.
Even though the phrase seems to be "in your repertoire" you don't seem to be making very good use of it since you're still trying to defend your objections and raise new ones!
I've read Ehrman and heard some of his debates, have you? If so, why are you aligning yourself with an unbeliever and taking pointers from him?
And that's not by my own judgment but by his own admission, which he has made in several interviews and books. For example:
If you would like to learn more about what I would say in rebuttal to your (Ehrman's) argument read Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and Lost in Translation? What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus and Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ.
Or you could start here (link) or here (link) or here (link).
Again you're just ignoring what I said earlier. I already addressed this. I said:
"Mark tells us that the phrase “Day of Preparation” refers to the Sabbath in the Passover week. John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” [...] that John intends for us to understand this as the day of Preparation that occurred on Passover is made obvious by verse 31: “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath...”
See also John 19:42: "So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there." It "belonged" to the Passover because that's when it was: on Passover in preparation for the Sabbath.
This is the same way that the other gospel writers use the term ( Matt 27:62; Luke 23:54).
It's clear from verses 31 and 42 as well as the other occurrences of the term in Matthew, Luke, and Mark that it refers to the day before Sabbath.
No they both have Jesus being crucified and dying on Friday. Read the texts: Mark 15 and John 19.
Here is John 19:30–31:
Here is Mark 15:37, 42
Apparently you didn't read my posts very carefully. You're doing just what I said:
Perhaps if you read Scripture more carefully too (rather than the likes of Ehrman) you wouldn't have these problems.
Even though the phrase seems to be "in your repertoire" you don't seem to be making very good use of it since you're still trying to defend your objections and raise new ones!
I've read Ehrman and heard some of his debates, have you? If so, why are you aligning yourself with an unbeliever and taking pointers from him?
And that's not by my own judgment but by his own admission, which he has made in several interviews and books. For example:
"...I came to a point where I could no longer believe… I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life… I finally admitted defeat, came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledge that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition…" (God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer, 3-4).
If you would like to learn more about what I would say in rebuttal to your (Ehrman's) argument read Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and Lost in Translation? What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus and Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ.
Or you could start here (link) or here (link) or here (link).
Again you're just ignoring what I said earlier. I already addressed this. I said:
"Mark tells us that the phrase “Day of Preparation” refers to the Sabbath in the Passover week. John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” [...] that John intends for us to understand this as the day of Preparation that occurred on Passover is made obvious by verse 31: “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath...”
See also John 19:42: "So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there." It "belonged" to the Passover because that's when it was: on Passover in preparation for the Sabbath.
This is the same way that the other gospel writers use the term ( Matt 27:62; Luke 23:54).
It's clear from verses 31 and 42 as well as the other occurrences of the term in Matthew, Luke, and Mark that it refers to the day before Sabbath.
No they both have Jesus being crucified and dying on Friday. Read the texts: Mark 15 and John 19.
Here is John 19:30–31:
When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)...
Here is Mark 15:37, 42
And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. ... And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath…
Apparently you didn't read my posts very carefully. You're doing just what I said:
"Now, you could try and list many other alleged “contradictions” and say “Well what about this and what about this…” and we could go through that [...] But in the end you’d just be doing the same thing that Sutra did when she opened this thread and so I might as well just say that if you really want to know how those aren’t contradictions go do some studying. Get books that are devoted to these types of questions, like the one I mentioned earlier or Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels or any other number of resouces that come to the text with more conservative pressuppositions…"
Perhaps if you read Scripture more carefully too (rather than the likes of Ehrman) you wouldn't have these problems.
C
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! 
This comes from the Anchor Bible Commentaries on the Gospel according to John by Raymond Brown, the most preeminent Johannine scholar of our lifetime. Since you discredit Ehrman because he is an Atheist, what do you think of Raymond Brown? Will you discredit him because he was an American Roman Catholic Priest and Biblical Scholar. Brown taught at the Protestant Union Theological School for 29 years.
"14. Day of Preparation. This is the sense of the Greek word paraskeue, although the Semitic word that is probably represents (Heb. 'ereb; Aram. 'aruba_ has the narrower connotation of "vigil, day before." The term, which appears in all the Gospels, was associated in the tradition with the day on which Jesus died. It was applicable to Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Josephus Ant. XVI.vi.2;#163), and this is the way in which the Synoptic understood it (Mark XV:43; Matt xxvii 62, Luke xxiii 54). But for John this is not only the day before the Sabbath but also the day before Passover, and John's "Day of Preparation for Passover" reflects the Hebrew expression 'ereb pesah (StB, II, 834ff). Torrey's theory (JBL 50 [1931], 227-41) that Passover should be understood as the festival period of seven days and that John is speaking of Friday within the Passover week has been refuted by S. Zeitlin, JBL 51 (1932), 263-271.
Noon. Literally "the sixth hour." Some witnesses, including the corrector of Sinaiticus, read "the third hour" (9am). Ammonius (early 3rd century) has this reading and Saint Bartina, VD 36 (1958), 16-37, upholds it on the grounds that when letters were used for numbers, an original old digamma (=3) may have been confused with the open sigma or episemon (=6). Although such confusion is possible (and, indeed, other explanations for the confusion have been advanced), we think it more likely that the reading “9 A.M.” was a scribal harmonization with the statement of Mark xv 25 that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. In all of this we suppose that John was reckoning hours from daylight rather than from midnight, so that the sixth hour was noon rather than 6 a.m. Some have favored the latter as a means for reconciling John’s information with Mark’s horarium for the crucifixion. But Jesus can scarcely have been brought to Pilate at the daybreak hour (close to 6 a.m. – Note on xviii 28), have undergone an extended trial including scourging and mocking, and still have received his sentence at 6 a.m. (For a recent defense of our understanding of John’s reckoning of time see J. E. Bruns, NTS 13 [1966-1967], 285-290.)
Only Mark fixes the crucifixion at 9 a.m. Since John’s reference to noon has theological significance, some scholars have rejected the idea that the trial took the whole morning and have accepted Mark’s horarium as historically correct. But Mark’s horarium means an incredibly crowded morning since the (second) session of the Sanhedrin is not supposed to have begun until about 6 a.m. Moreover, the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark xv 33; Matt xxvii 45, Luke xxiii 44) state that there was darkness over the whole land from noon until 3p.m., a statement that would seem to designate the period when Jesus was on the cross. (Has Mark unwittingly combined two sources with contradictory time indications?) A. Mahoney, CBQ 27 (1965), 292-299, has tried to get around the difficulty by explaining that the reference to 9 a.m. in Mark applies only to the casting of lots for Jesus’ clothes which took place when Jesus was stripped to be scourged – obviously a hypothesis that cannot be proved. Some have thought that Mark was counting in three-hour periods, so that “the third hour” could mean the period beginning with the third hour, i.e., 9-12 am E. Lipinski (see NTA 4 [1959-69], #54) observes that Mark xv 21 describes Simon of Cyrene as coming in from the fields – a detail that would favor noon as the time of the crucifixion, for all work stopped about noon on Passover Eve (except that for Mark the day is Passover itself!).
The hour of noon on the Preparation Day for the Passover was the hour for beginning the slaughter of the paschal lambs. The ancient law of Exod xii 6 required that the paschal lamb be kept alive until the 14th of Nisan and then slaughtered in the evening (literally, “between the two evenings,” a phrase sometimes interpreted as meaning between sunset and darkness). By Jesus’ time the slaughtering was no longer done at home by the heads of the families but in the temple precincts by the priests. A great number of lambs had to be slaughtered for more than 100,000 Passover participants in Jerusalem (Note on xi 55), and so the slaughtering could no longer be done in the evening, in the technical sense of after sunset. By casuistry “evening” was interpreted to begin at noon when the sun began to decline, and thus the priests had the whole afternoon of the 14th to accomplish their task. See Bonsirve, ar. Cit., for the rabbinical citations – he points out that the rule whereby only unleavened bread could be eaten also went into effect at noon. The parenthetical Johannine reference to noon is probably meant to indicate the time for the whole action described in vss. 13-16, including the death sentence.
Now for Brown’s comment on John xix 31.
“Since it was the day of preparation. Here the term seems primarily to refer to the vigil of the Sabbath (thus ca. 6 p.m. Thursday to ca. 6 p.m. Friday) rather than to the vigil of Passover. This is unlike the occurrence of the term in xix 14 (see note there). Bultmann, p. 5245, thinks that this verse reflects a tradition where Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan (the Synoptic position – se pp. 555-56 above), so that the next day, a Sabbath, would have been the 16th of Nisan, a particularly solemn day, for in the Pharisaic tradition it was the day for offering sheaves (cf. Lev xxiii 6-14). We can make no decision about a single verse; but we observe that in vs. 36 there is a comparison of Jesus’ death to the condition of the paschal lamb, so that plausibly this scene can be held to have occurred on the 14th of Nisan, the day when the lambs were slaughtered. Perhaps the phraseology of the clause under discussion is dependent on Mark xv 42 (which introduces the incident of Joseph’s asking for the body): “Since it was the Day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” Despite the difference of context, this clause constitutes one of the rare verbatim between the Johannine and Marcan narratives of the crucifixion. In the different witnesses to the text of John the clause appears in difference places in the verse – sometimes a sign of scribal addition.
"14. Day of Preparation. This is the sense of the Greek word paraskeue, although the Semitic word that is probably represents (Heb. 'ereb; Aram. 'aruba_ has the narrower connotation of "vigil, day before." The term, which appears in all the Gospels, was associated in the tradition with the day on which Jesus died. It was applicable to Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Josephus Ant. XVI.vi.2;#163), and this is the way in which the Synoptic understood it (Mark XV:43; Matt xxvii 62, Luke xxiii 54). But for John this is not only the day before the Sabbath but also the day before Passover, and John's "Day of Preparation for Passover" reflects the Hebrew expression 'ereb pesah (StB, II, 834ff). Torrey's theory (JBL 50 [1931], 227-41) that Passover should be understood as the festival period of seven days and that John is speaking of Friday within the Passover week has been refuted by S. Zeitlin, JBL 51 (1932), 263-271.
Noon. Literally "the sixth hour." Some witnesses, including the corrector of Sinaiticus, read "the third hour" (9am). Ammonius (early 3rd century) has this reading and Saint Bartina, VD 36 (1958), 16-37, upholds it on the grounds that when letters were used for numbers, an original old digamma (=3) may have been confused with the open sigma or episemon (=6). Although such confusion is possible (and, indeed, other explanations for the confusion have been advanced), we think it more likely that the reading “9 A.M.” was a scribal harmonization with the statement of Mark xv 25 that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. In all of this we suppose that John was reckoning hours from daylight rather than from midnight, so that the sixth hour was noon rather than 6 a.m. Some have favored the latter as a means for reconciling John’s information with Mark’s horarium for the crucifixion. But Jesus can scarcely have been brought to Pilate at the daybreak hour (close to 6 a.m. – Note on xviii 28), have undergone an extended trial including scourging and mocking, and still have received his sentence at 6 a.m. (For a recent defense of our understanding of John’s reckoning of time see J. E. Bruns, NTS 13 [1966-1967], 285-290.)
Only Mark fixes the crucifixion at 9 a.m. Since John’s reference to noon has theological significance, some scholars have rejected the idea that the trial took the whole morning and have accepted Mark’s horarium as historically correct. But Mark’s horarium means an incredibly crowded morning since the (second) session of the Sanhedrin is not supposed to have begun until about 6 a.m. Moreover, the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark xv 33; Matt xxvii 45, Luke xxiii 44) state that there was darkness over the whole land from noon until 3p.m., a statement that would seem to designate the period when Jesus was on the cross. (Has Mark unwittingly combined two sources with contradictory time indications?) A. Mahoney, CBQ 27 (1965), 292-299, has tried to get around the difficulty by explaining that the reference to 9 a.m. in Mark applies only to the casting of lots for Jesus’ clothes which took place when Jesus was stripped to be scourged – obviously a hypothesis that cannot be proved. Some have thought that Mark was counting in three-hour periods, so that “the third hour” could mean the period beginning with the third hour, i.e., 9-12 am E. Lipinski (see NTA 4 [1959-69], #54) observes that Mark xv 21 describes Simon of Cyrene as coming in from the fields – a detail that would favor noon as the time of the crucifixion, for all work stopped about noon on Passover Eve (except that for Mark the day is Passover itself!).
The hour of noon on the Preparation Day for the Passover was the hour for beginning the slaughter of the paschal lambs. The ancient law of Exod xii 6 required that the paschal lamb be kept alive until the 14th of Nisan and then slaughtered in the evening (literally, “between the two evenings,” a phrase sometimes interpreted as meaning between sunset and darkness). By Jesus’ time the slaughtering was no longer done at home by the heads of the families but in the temple precincts by the priests. A great number of lambs had to be slaughtered for more than 100,000 Passover participants in Jerusalem (Note on xi 55), and so the slaughtering could no longer be done in the evening, in the technical sense of after sunset. By casuistry “evening” was interpreted to begin at noon when the sun began to decline, and thus the priests had the whole afternoon of the 14th to accomplish their task. See Bonsirve, ar. Cit., for the rabbinical citations – he points out that the rule whereby only unleavened bread could be eaten also went into effect at noon. The parenthetical Johannine reference to noon is probably meant to indicate the time for the whole action described in vss. 13-16, including the death sentence.
Now for Brown’s comment on John xix 31.
“Since it was the day of preparation. Here the term seems primarily to refer to the vigil of the Sabbath (thus ca. 6 p.m. Thursday to ca. 6 p.m. Friday) rather than to the vigil of Passover. This is unlike the occurrence of the term in xix 14 (see note there). Bultmann, p. 5245, thinks that this verse reflects a tradition where Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan (the Synoptic position – se pp. 555-56 above), so that the next day, a Sabbath, would have been the 16th of Nisan, a particularly solemn day, for in the Pharisaic tradition it was the day for offering sheaves (cf. Lev xxiii 6-14). We can make no decision about a single verse; but we observe that in vs. 36 there is a comparison of Jesus’ death to the condition of the paschal lamb, so that plausibly this scene can be held to have occurred on the 14th of Nisan, the day when the lambs were slaughtered. Perhaps the phraseology of the clause under discussion is dependent on Mark xv 42 (which introduces the incident of Joseph’s asking for the body): “Since it was the Day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” Despite the difference of context, this clause constitutes one of the rare verbatim between the Johannine and Marcan narratives of the crucifixion. In the different witnesses to the text of John the clause appears in difference places in the verse – sometimes a sign of scribal addition.
Last edited:
C
So all this stuff about you leaving the thread alone and "agreeing to disagree" is really nothing more than a rhetorical tactic… lip service. An attempt to make it look like you're taking the moral high-ground on walking away from a fruitless discussion, but you want to have your cake and eat it too: say you'll walk away from a fruitless discussion while still trying to maintain the discussion. Nice… but a bit too obvious when you don't actually do it.
Of course if an authority figure says it that makes it so, right? No, just more naivety.
Now, you think it is sufficient to demonstrate that John 19:14 is a contradiction by simply quoting your authority, Raymond Brown (Brown doesn't actually give any reasons to support his conclusion, just assertions and a reference).
Ehrman is considered a preeminent NT scholar by some folk, right? Apparently you view him as an authority too, correct (unless you want to end up arguing against yourself again)?
Well Ehrman believes the resurrection of Christ is simply a made up story to convince to become Christians:
Ehrman agrees with you that John 19:14 is in contradiction with the other gospels:
So points for you, right? Add another notch to your list of scholars on John 19:14. Well Ehrman believes that the resurrection story has these same contradictions:
Now, let's look at your methodology here.
You claim, "x is a contradiction."
I respond, "No, it's not because it's possible that y."
You respond, "Yes it is because Authority1 says so."
Now, if "Authority1 says so" is sufficient to substantiate a claim, then if Authority2 says the resurrection is most likely a made up story then that should be sufficient to substantiate that claim.
So do you accept Bart Ehrman's conclusion or not? If not, then you're also going to need more than assertions from Brown.
First of all, I didn't use Torrey's argument that Passover referred to the weeklong festival, so even if Zeitlin has refuted him, it doesn't deal with what I said.
Second, I've read Zeitlin's article and all he does is demonstrate that "The word Παρασκευή is not a Jewish technical term at all" (268). But this doesn't exactly defeat Torrey's conclusion that by "Passover" John referred to the weeklong festival, although it does defeat one of the premises his argument is based on: that it was Jewish technical term.
Cullen Story manages to retain Torrey's conclusion by arguing that this is the way John used the term (regardless of whether or not it was a Jewish technical term), as evidenced by 6:4 (cf. The Chronology of the Holy Week. Bibliotheca Sacra 97.385). So we might say Torrey's conclusion can stand even if the premise can't.
That this is "sometimes" a "sign" of scribal addition isn't sufficient to prove it invalid and if the clause is present in all the MSS and we still have vs 42 then we really have no reason to reject it. .
Furthermore, note that in order to avoid the charge of a contradiction one need only show that there are *possible* solutions. So it's not even necessary that I say the clause is actually original in 31 or that this is actually the solution to John 19:14. So long as there is a possible harmonization it can't be charged as an actual contradiction.
Brown doesn't give us any reason to believe John 19:14 refers to Thursday. Instead he gives us an assertion. But simply saying "Nuh-uh!" doesn't cut it, even if the one going "Nuh-uh!" is a "preeminent" scholar. "Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal, so again you haven't addressed my claims... You've just quoted Brown making assertions.
As for the quote concerning the hour of the crucifixion, see the resources I mentioned. It's a bit ridiculous when I answer the charges you bring up and all you do is try to find more. Why not just save yourself some time and say "But what about the stuff Sutra mentioned?!" That's the common tactic of atheists who are desperate to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but when you're looking to folks like Ehrman to "study" Scripture I guess it's not too surprising…
Of course if an authority figure says it that makes it so, right? No, just more naivety.
Now, you think it is sufficient to demonstrate that John 19:14 is a contradiction by simply quoting your authority, Raymond Brown (Brown doesn't actually give any reasons to support his conclusion, just assertions and a reference).
Ehrman is considered a preeminent NT scholar by some folk, right? Apparently you view him as an authority too, correct (unless you want to end up arguing against yourself again)?
Well Ehrman believes the resurrection of Christ is simply a made up story to convince to become Christians:
After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. They were trying to convert both Jews and Gentiles. How do you convert somebody to stop worshipping their God and to start worshipping Jesus? You have to tell stories about Jesus. So you convert somebody on the basis of the stories you tell. That person converts somebody who converts somebody who converts somebody, and all along the line people are telling stories…
Ehrman agrees with you that John 19:14 is in contradiction with the other gospels:
Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark?
So points for you, right? Add another notch to your list of scholars on John 19:14. Well Ehrman believes that the resurrection story has these same contradictions:
Or take the accounts of the resurrection. … You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. … Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. … These accounts that we have of Jesus' resurrection are not internally consistent; they're full of discrepancies, including the account of his death and his resurrection.
Now, let's look at your methodology here.
You claim, "x is a contradiction."
I respond, "No, it's not because it's possible that y."
You respond, "Yes it is because Authority1 says so."
Now, if "Authority1 says so" is sufficient to substantiate a claim, then if Authority2 says the resurrection is most likely a made up story then that should be sufficient to substantiate that claim.
So do you accept Bart Ehrman's conclusion or not? If not, then you're also going to need more than assertions from Brown.
First of all, I didn't use Torrey's argument that Passover referred to the weeklong festival, so even if Zeitlin has refuted him, it doesn't deal with what I said.
Second, I've read Zeitlin's article and all he does is demonstrate that "The word Παρασκευή is not a Jewish technical term at all" (268). But this doesn't exactly defeat Torrey's conclusion that by "Passover" John referred to the weeklong festival, although it does defeat one of the premises his argument is based on: that it was Jewish technical term.
Cullen Story manages to retain Torrey's conclusion by arguing that this is the way John used the term (regardless of whether or not it was a Jewish technical term), as evidenced by 6:4 (cf. The Chronology of the Holy Week. Bibliotheca Sacra 97.385). So we might say Torrey's conclusion can stand even if the premise can't.
That this is "sometimes" a "sign" of scribal addition isn't sufficient to prove it invalid and if the clause is present in all the MSS and we still have vs 42 then we really have no reason to reject it. .
Furthermore, note that in order to avoid the charge of a contradiction one need only show that there are *possible* solutions. So it's not even necessary that I say the clause is actually original in 31 or that this is actually the solution to John 19:14. So long as there is a possible harmonization it can't be charged as an actual contradiction.
Brown doesn't give us any reason to believe John 19:14 refers to Thursday. Instead he gives us an assertion. But simply saying "Nuh-uh!" doesn't cut it, even if the one going "Nuh-uh!" is a "preeminent" scholar. "Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal, so again you haven't addressed my claims... You've just quoted Brown making assertions.
As for the quote concerning the hour of the crucifixion, see the resources I mentioned. It's a bit ridiculous when I answer the charges you bring up and all you do is try to find more. Why not just save yourself some time and say "But what about the stuff Sutra mentioned?!" That's the common tactic of atheists who are desperate to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but when you're looking to folks like Ehrman to "study" Scripture I guess it's not too surprising…
Cleante
son, i appreciate your effort to answer my question but i have a problem.
I DON'T READ GREEK.
what is Πἀσχα?
does it means Easter? or Passover? please explain. i am asking because i want to know if EO blasphemes Christ as the RC does by pasting that horrid Babylonian Pagan Name of Ishtar over the Holy Passover.
i understand you are trying to be a good adherent to your religion by using all the Greek. i wonder if Greek is your first language? i see you are an American....i also see you are rather young in age, and i'm quite impressed by your level of study.
it's just my issue and i'm sure i'll find a way to cope with it
, but i am a little bemused by your insistence on XC (if Greek is your primary language, good then). but in English we know our Lord as JESUS. i just find it a little silly that i must use a translating program to get what you are saying.regards,
zone
B
Amen. Non of those are condradictions, for the word of the Lord is perfect. The human mind is quite limited at most, and it takes humility to understand the difference.
May the Lord guide you in your quest to solve the puzzle in you, and when God gives you the holy answers, share your testimony with us. We will rejoice with you.
May the Lord guide you in your quest to solve the puzzle in you, and when God gives you the holy answers, share your testimony with us. We will rejoice with you.
L
-Gen 1: 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and , behold, it was very good'
This means that is was not only good , but very good It, was man and the completed cosmos, the universe etc.
Gen 6:6 ' And it repented the LORD , that He had made man on the Earth, and it grieved His heart.......'
God does not change as regards His nature, however, he assumed a changed position in respect to 'changed' man. Regarding God's Nature, its the SIN that grieves his Heart.....
Gen 6: 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the Earth''
Man's Wickedness had become so great, that if God had not done so MAN would have eventually destroyed himself. Sin had to be judged and the sooner the better..And he had to destroy the 'animal Kingdom as well because it would have served no purpose, because he created it for man' use .
Acts 7: 48. Says, howbeit the most High dwells not in temples made with hands..
This speaks of the prayer offered up by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple in ' 1 Kings 8; 27.This verse speaks of Isaiah the prophet.
Verse 49 says that Heaven is My Throne, and earth is MY Footstool , ( God is bigger and greater than anything.)what house will you bilud Me ? says the LOrd.; or what is the place of rest'
The temple was only until Christ came. Israel believed that the temple was all there was., and not a step toward the ultimate goal which was Jesus, in who alone one can find REST.
Sorry, But I do not have the time to go through all the scriptures you mentioned. But, its important that one has clear understanding of the Word. Its a fact, that many, mant believers do not read their blbles, because they cannot understand it, and those they sit under do not know themselves. Do like I did, when I did not understand some scriptures, and the praechers explaination did not 'sound' right some years ago, I asked the Holy Spirit to show me the meanings , and He did. You can do the some.
Have a bless day, Lee.
This means that is was not only good , but very good It, was man and the completed cosmos, the universe etc.
Gen 6:6 ' And it repented the LORD , that He had made man on the Earth, and it grieved His heart.......'
God does not change as regards His nature, however, he assumed a changed position in respect to 'changed' man. Regarding God's Nature, its the SIN that grieves his Heart.....
Gen 6: 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the Earth''
Man's Wickedness had become so great, that if God had not done so MAN would have eventually destroyed himself. Sin had to be judged and the sooner the better..And he had to destroy the 'animal Kingdom as well because it would have served no purpose, because he created it for man' use .
Acts 7: 48. Says, howbeit the most High dwells not in temples made with hands..
This speaks of the prayer offered up by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple in ' 1 Kings 8; 27.This verse speaks of Isaiah the prophet.
Verse 49 says that Heaven is My Throne, and earth is MY Footstool , ( God is bigger and greater than anything.)what house will you bilud Me ? says the LOrd.; or what is the place of rest'
The temple was only until Christ came. Israel believed that the temple was all there was., and not a step toward the ultimate goal which was Jesus, in who alone one can find REST.
Sorry, But I do not have the time to go through all the scriptures you mentioned. But, its important that one has clear understanding of the Word. Its a fact, that many, mant believers do not read their blbles, because they cannot understand it, and those they sit under do not know themselves. Do like I did, when I did not understand some scriptures, and the praechers explaination did not 'sound' right some years ago, I asked the Holy Spirit to show me the meanings , and He did. You can do the some.
Have a bless day, Lee.
Cleante
son, i appreciate your effort to answer my question but i have a problem.
I DON'T READ GREEK.
what is Πἀσχα?
does it means Easter? or Passover? please explain. i am asking because i want to know if EO blasphemes Christ as the RC does by pasting that horrid Babylonian Pagan Name of Ishtar over the Holy Passover.
i understand you are trying to be a good adherent to your religion by using all the Greek. i wonder if Greek is your first language? i see you are an American....i also see you are rather young in age, and i'm quite impressed by your level of study.
it's just my issue and i'm sure i'll find a way to cope with it, but i am a little bemused by your insistence on XC (if Greek is your primary language, good then). but in English we know our Lord as JESUS. i just find it a little silly that i must use a translating program to get what you are saying.
regards,
zone
son, i appreciate your effort to answer my question but i have a problem.
I DON'T READ GREEK.
what is Πἀσχα?
does it means Easter? or Passover? please explain. i am asking because i want to know if EO blasphemes Christ as the RC does by pasting that horrid Babylonian Pagan Name of Ishtar over the Holy Passover.
i understand you are trying to be a good adherent to your religion by using all the Greek. i wonder if Greek is your first language? i see you are an American....i also see you are rather young in age, and i'm quite impressed by your level of study.
it's just my issue and i'm sure i'll find a way to cope with it
, but i am a little bemused by your insistence on XC (if Greek is your primary language, good then). but in English we know our Lord as JESUS. i just find it a little silly that i must use a translating program to get what you are saying. regards,
zone
Ιησοὐς Χριστὀς indeed Jesus Christ. IC XC is just the first and last letter of each name. It is known as a Christogram.
Wikipedia said:
The Greek word Πάσχα and hence the Latin form Pascha is derived from Hebrew Pesach (פֶּסַח meaning the festival of Passover. In Greek the word Ἀνάστασις (upstanding, up-rising, resurrection) is used also as an alternative.
The modern English term Easter developed from the Old English word Ēastre[needs IPA] or Ēostre, which itself developed prior to 899. The name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar attested by Bede, who writes that the month is named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.[6] Bede notes that Ēostur-monath was the equivalent to the month of April, yet that feasts held in her honor during Ēostur-monath had died out by the time of his writing and had been replaced with the Christian custom of "Paschal season".
meaning the festival of Passover. In Greek the word Ἀνάστασις (upstanding, up-rising, resurrection) is used also as an alternative.The modern English term Easter developed from the Old English word Ēastre[needs IPA] or Ēostre, which itself developed prior to 899. The name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar attested by Bede, who writes that the month is named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.[6] Bede notes that Ēostur-monath was the equivalent to the month of April, yet that feasts held in her honor during Ēostur-monath had died out by the time of his writing and had been replaced with the Christian custom of "Paschal season".
C
Cleante
son, i appreciate your effort to answer my question but i have a problem.
I DON'T READ GREEK.
what is Πἀσχα?
does it means Easter? or Passover? please explain. i am asking because i want to know if EO blasphemes Christ as the RC does by pasting that horrid Babylonian Pagan Name of Ishtar over the Holy Passover.
i understand you are trying to be a good adherent to your religion by using all the Greek. i wonder if Greek is your first language? i see you are an American....i also see you are rather young in age, and i'm quite impressed by your level of study.
it's just my issue and i'm sure i'll find a way to cope with it, but i am a little bemused by your insistence on XC (if Greek is your primary language, good then). but in English we know our Lord as JESUS. i just find it a little silly that i must use a translating program to get what you are saying.
regards,
zone
son, i appreciate your effort to answer my question but i have a problem.
I DON'T READ GREEK.
what is Πἀσχα?
does it means Easter? or Passover? please explain. i am asking because i want to know if EO blasphemes Christ as the RC does by pasting that horrid Babylonian Pagan Name of Ishtar over the Holy Passover.
i understand you are trying to be a good adherent to your religion by using all the Greek. i wonder if Greek is your first language? i see you are an American....i also see you are rather young in age, and i'm quite impressed by your level of study.
it's just my issue and i'm sure i'll find a way to cope with it
, but i am a little bemused by your insistence on XC (if Greek is your primary language, good then). but in English we know our Lord as JESUS. i just find it a little silly that i must use a translating program to get what you are saying.regards,
zone