I exposed Brown's Lies and refuted his Objections by the Help of the Triune God.
And in this Particular section of my Refutation I will delve into the objections Brown raises about the supposed contradictions in the Bible and show that If you just read all the Passages in their respected Context Brown's argument's will begin to slowly fall to the ground. And as I have stated in my last blog post, the Section on Brown's Article that I highlight will be the Section I will be refuting and addressing on this Particular blog. I will be breaking My refutation into Parts and right now we are in Part 2 of my refutations.
So Let us Begin
Here is Browns Article again :
Where is the “Christ” in “Christianity?”
Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith more to Paul’s teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament.
The Old Testament teaches that Jacob wrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not only wrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bear in mind, we’re talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator of a universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over a billion galaxies of which ours—the Milky Way Galaxy—is just one (and a small one, at that), and prevailing? I’m sorry, but someone was a couple pages short of a codex when they scribed that passage. The point is, however, that this passage leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish concept of God or accept their explanation that “God” does not mean “God” in the above verses, but rather it means either an angel or a man (which, in essence, means the Old Testament is not to be trusted). In fact, this textual difficulty has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have tried to cover it up by changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What they cannot change, however, is the foundational scripture from which the Jewish Bible is translated, and this continues to read “God.”
Unreliability is a recurring problem in the Old Testament, the most prominent example being the confusion between God and Satan! II Samuel 24:1 reads, “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” However, I Chronicles 21:1 states, “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”
Uhhh, which was it? The Lord, or Satan? Both verses describe the same event in history, but one speaks of God and the other of Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference.
Christians would like to believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to this subject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over whether Jesus’ family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 differ over the wording of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and John 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.
Things get worse when we enter the arena of the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21) or Jesus (John 19:17)? Was Jesus dressed in a scarlet robe (Matthew 27:28) or a purple robe (John 19:2)? Did the Roman soldiers put gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23) in his wine? Was Jesus crucified before the third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did Jesus ascend the first day (Luke 23:43) or not (John 20:17)? Were Jesus’ last words, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit my spirit’” (Luke 23:46), or were they “It is finished” (John 19:30)?
These are only a few of a long list of scriptural inconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the New Testament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust their salvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answer the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’” This, in fact, is a supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named after Jesus Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, which is to sayTrinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything he taught.
I know, I know—those of you who aren’t screaming “Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. But wait. Put down the high-powered rifle and listen. Trinitarian Christianity claims to base its doctrines on a combination of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. The problem is, these teachings are anything but complementary. In fact, they contradict one another.
Take some examples: Jesus taught Old Testament Law; Paul negated it. Jesus preached orthodox Jewish creed; Paul preached mysteries of faith. Jesus spoke of accountability; Paul proposed justification by faith. Jesus described himself as an ethnic prophet; Paul defined him as a universal prophet.*
Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians constructed the Trinity.
For these reasons, many scholars consider Paul the main corrupter of Apostolic Christianity and Jesus’ teachings. Many early Christian sects held this view as well, including the second-century Christian sects known as “adoptionists”– “In particular, they considered Paul, one of the most prominent authors of our New Testament, to be an arch-heretic rather than an apostle.” (1)
Lehmann contributes,
What Paul proclaimed as ‘Christianity’ was sheer heresy which could not be based on the Jewish or Essene faith, or on the teaching of Rabbi Jesus. But, as Schonfield says, ‘The Pauline heresy became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate church was disowned as heretical.’ … Paul did something that Rabbi Jesus never did and refused to do. He extended God’s promise of salvation to the Gentiles; he abolished the law of Moses, and he prevented direct access to God by introducing an intermediary. (2)
Bart D. Ehrman, perhaps the most authoritative living scholar of textual criticism, comments,
Paul’s view was not universally accepted or, one might argue, even widely accepted …. Even more striking, Paul’s own letters indicate that there were outspoken, sincere, and active Christian leaders who vehemently disagreed with him on this score and considered Paul’s views to be a corruption of the true message of Christ …. One should always bear in mind that in this very letter of Galatians Paul indicates that he confronted Peter over just such issues (Gal. 2:11-14). He disagreed, that is, even with Jesus’ closest disciple on the matter. (3)
Commenting on the views of some early Christians in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Ehrman wrote,
Paul has corrupted the true faith based on a brief vision, which he has doubtless misconstrued. Paul is thus the enemy of the apostles, not the chief of them. He is outside the true faith, a heretic to be banned, not an apostle to be followed. (4)
Others elevate Paul to sainthood. Joel Carmichael very clearly is not one of them:
We are a universe away from Jesus. If Jesus came “only to fulfill” the Law and the Prophets; If he thought that “not an iota, not a dot” would “pass from the Law,” that the cardinal commandment was “Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one,” and that “no one was good but God”….What would he have thought of Paul’s handiwork! Paul’s triumph meant the final obliteration of the historic Jesus; he comes to us embalmed in Christianity like a fly in amber. (5)
Dr. Johannes Weiss contributes,
Hence the faith in Christ as held by the primitive churches and by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus; it was a new type of religion. (6)
A new type of religion, indeed. And hence the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’” If Christianity is the religion of Jesus Christ, where are the Old Testament laws and strict monotheism of the Rabbi Jesus’ Orthodox Judaism? Why does Christianity teach that Jesus is the son of God when Jesus called himself the “son of Man” eighty-eight times, and not once the “son of God?” Why does Christianity endorse confession to priests and prayers to saints, Mary and Jesus when Jesus taught his followers, “In this manner, therefore, pray: ‘Our Father …’” (Matthew 6:9)? And who appointed a pope? Certainly not Jesus. True, he may have called Peter the rock upon which he would build his church (Matthew 16:18-19). However, a scant five verses later, he called Peter “Satan” and “an offense.” And let us not forget that this “rock” thrice denied Jesus after Jesus’ arrest—poor testimony of Peter’s commitment to the new church.
Is it possible that Christians have been denying Jesus ever since? Transforming Jesus’ strict monotheism to the Pauline theologians’ Trinity, replacing Rabbi Jesus’ Old Testament law with Paul’s “justification by faith,” substituting the concept of Jesus having atoned for the sins of mankind for the direct accountability Jesus taught, discarding Jesus’ claim to humanity for Paul’s concept of Jesus having been divine, we have to question in exactly what manner Christianity respects the teachings of its prophet.
A parallel issue is to define which religion does respect Jesus’ teachings. So let’s see: Which religion honors Jesus Christ as a prophet but a man? Which religion adheres to strict monotheism, God’s laws, and the concept of direct accountability to God? Which religion denies intermediaries between man and God?
If you answered, “Islam,” you would be right. And in this manner, we find the teachings of Jesus Christ better exemplified in the religion of Islam than in Christianity. This suggestion, however, is not meant to be a conclusion, but rather an introduction. Those who find their interest peaked by the above discussion need to take the issue seriously, open their minds and then … read on!
Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown
Permission granted for free and unrestricted reproduction if reproduced in entirety without omissions, additions or alterations.
(A graduate of Cornell University, Brown University Medical School and George Washington University Hospital residency program, Laurence B. Brown is an ophthalmic surgeon, a retired Air Force officer, and the medical director and chief ophthalmologist of a major eye center. He is also an ordained interfaith minister with a doctorate in divinity and a PhD in religion, and the author of a number of books of comparative religion and reality-based fiction. His works can be found on his website, www.LevelTruth.com)
∗ Jesus Christ was one more prophet in the long line of prophets sent to the astray Israelites. As he so clearly affirmed, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) When Jesus sent the disciples out in the path of God, he instructed them, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6) Throughout his ministry, Jesus was never recorded as having converted a Gentile, and in fact is recorded as having initially rebuked a Gentile for seeking his favors, likening her to a dog (Matthew 15:22-28 and Mark 7:25-30). Jesus was himself a Jew, his disciples were Jews, and both he and they directed their ministries to the Jews. One wonders what this means to us now, for most of those who have taken Jesus as their ‘personal savior’ are Gentiles, and not of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” to whom he was sent.
So to start off Brown claims that there's a supposed unreliable problems in the Old Testament with a supposed confusion between God and Satan.
Now let's read both these verses to see If they supposedly "contradict" one another.
2 Samuel 24:1 : 24 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
And in 1 Chronicles 21:1 We Read
21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”
These two Passages can be easily answered Because If you Just read them plainly it's quite clear that Both God and Satan were involved in this particular story. In 2 Samuel 24:1 God is angry commands David to count or take consensus of Judah, while Satan in 1 Chronicles is also involved and also ask David to count or take the consensus, in other words both God and Satan wanted David to count or take consensus of Israel and Judea.
For Example In the New Testament Both Satan and God were involved in Jesus's crucifixion but for different reasons.
John 13:2 2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.
So in this Passage it Is Clear that Satan was involved in Jesus's betrayal, he used Judas as the human Agent to Betray Jesus, however what Satan didn't know was that by doing this or in other words Killing Jesus, Jesus would then accomplish he will all along which was to Die on the cross and save humanity from sin.
Here is the passage 1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
So Paul makes it quite clear that the rulers which is Satan and his Demons crucified Jesus but for different reasons because they didn't Understand what Christ came to do.
But we also read in other Passages that God The Father himself was responsible as well
We Read in Act 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
So in Acts it is quite clear that God predestined and also planned the crucifixion of Jesus, however God planed to save humanity. In other words God had a different plan in Mind than that of Satan and somehow this is a supposed contradiction in the Bible. God planed Christs Crucifixion to redeem Man kind for their sins, while Satan did it to Kill Jesus or in other words get rid of him, because Satan hates God.
So I don't understand how Brown says this is a supposed contradiction just because both God and Satan are involved with David's consensus but for DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
He also says that " Christians would like to believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to this subject"
Brown again keeps referring to how we are deceived by our texts. When in reality he is one that's deceived by Satan and is a human Agent of Satan to twist verses in the Bible and make supposed claims that the Bible has contradictions. He then attacks those who make responses to these books, however he ends up contradicting himself because he just made this Article to try and Justify his beliefs and his teachings, which is inconsistent. So If it's OK For Brown to Attack the Bible and make Articles and Books when there's all kinds of deception in these books then why is it not OK for Christians to make responses to people like Brown, I don't understand.
Let's continue on Brown's supposed contradictions
Brown suggest that the Gospels are "contradictory" because in Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 supposedly differs on whether Jesus and his Family either fled to Egypt or to Nazareth.
Let's read the Passages Matthew 2:14 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
So In Matthews Gospel Joseph and Mary took the young Jesus and Left for Egypt to escape Herod's rage.
But in Luke 2:39 we read When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
So Luke we read that when Joseph and Mary HAD DONE everything required by the law of the Lord they returned to their town of Nazareth.
So it is clear that in Matthew's Gospel Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt.
And in Luke's Gospel Mary and Joseph have already fulfilled all of this and return to Nazareth
So I don't know how this is a supposed contradiction when it is clear that Matthew mentions what Mary, Joseph and Jesus did which is flee to Egypt. While Luke's Gospel the Fleeing to Egypt has already taken place and Now Mary and Joseph return to their town Nazareth.
Luke simply skips all the events and says that It was all Fulfilled by Mary and Joseph , he says nothing about Herod, So i don't understand Brown's point here.
Where is the Contradiction Brown I don't understand.
You See How Brown lies and distorts the Bible
Let us continue:
Brown in his attempts to supposedly refute the Bible says that Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 differ on the Words of the Lords Prayer.
In Matthew 6:9 -13 We Read :9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11
Give us today our daily bread.
12
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13
And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.
And Luke 11:2-4 We read : 2 He said to them, “When you pray, say:
“‘Father,[a]
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.[b]
3
Give us each day our daily bread.
4
Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
And lead us not into temptation.[d]’”
Now I don't see how Brown see's this as a contradiction as they virtually say the the exact same thing.
Luke just skips the phrases because he is just summing up the Lords prayer in Matthew's Gospel.
But Luke's version of the Prayer by no means changes the meaning at all in Matthew's Gospel they read identically with some minor exceptions.
Luke obviously just chose not to add parts of the prayer, he just summarizes the Lord's Prayer in Matthew
So I don't see how Brown thinks this is a supposed contradiction when even in today's news papers we read summaries all the time but that does not mean they are contradictions simply because one chose not to add more detail than the other.
For Example If I say Jesse and I went to McDonald"s to get a Milkshake AND a Big Mac.
And then Jesse says I went to McDonald's this would not be a contradiction it simply means that Jesse chose not to add more detail to his information, he just chooses to say that he simply went to McDonald's but this still does not change the fact they he WENT to McDonald's which agrees with my statement.
So much for this supposed Contradictions in the Lord's Prayer and in doing so Brown end's up condemning all the New Papers and I'm pretty sure even himself If he is going to apply this silly logic to written Material, such Inconsistency.
Let's Move on
Brown goes on to say that Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and John 1:21 supposedly contradict because one disagrees as to whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.
First off what Brown doesn't tell you is that they are some uttered statements in the Bible even tho revealed in the Bible are not inspired WORDS from God.
For Example even Satan tempted Eve and speaks in the Bible but that doesn't mean his specific words are the Inspired words of God.
Now let's Read the Passages: Matthew 11:13-14 and 17:11-13
13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.
And 11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
So In Matthew's Gospel it is very clear even by lips of Jesus himself that John The Baptist is himself Elijah.
Now Let's read John 1:21
21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
He answered, “No.”
In this verse the Jews Ask John The Baptist if he is Elijah and it is clear from the this verse that John said No.
The answer to these verses are very clear and easy because it's quite clear that even tho Jesus said that John is Elijah, John the Baptist himself didn't believe he was or in other words did not know because he was simply ignorant.
So I don't know how this is a supposed contradiction when it is clear that John the Baptist is UN aware that he is Elijah although Jesus plainly said that he his.
For example the Jews condemned Jesus to death because of supposed blasphemy but does that mean they were right because it doesn't, that's why it's very important to differentiate between God's actual inspired words in the Bible and words from humans or Satan what have you that are inspired in the sense of what that individual spoke but is still revealed in God's word.
So I don't know how Brown can use weak arguments to allege supposed contradictions in the Bible.
And we move on
Brown then says that things supposedly get worse well let's see.
He says that Luke 23:26,Matthew 27:32,Mark 15:21 all say that Simon of Sirene carried the cross, while in John 19:17 it was Jesus.
Now let's read them
Luke 23:26 26 As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
Matthew 27:32 32 As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene,named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Mark 15:21 21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
So it's clear from these passages that Simon of Cyrene Carried Jesus Cross but notice how in Matthew's Gospel it say's " As they were going out"
meaning the soldiers were already walking with Jesus, also notice it says they MET him it doesn;t say they were with him it says they Met him, which means that the soldiers must have met Simon along the way. Also Note that they FORCED Simon to Carry the cross. So what's the connection with MEETING Simon and FORCING him to carry the cross??
I'll get to that in a minute
In John 19:17 we Read 17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull(which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
So it is clear in Jonhs's Gospel that Jesus carried his cross.
The answer to these two supposed contradictions is simple Jesus carry;s his cross and when unable Simon of Cyrene takes over. Or in other words it's very clear that the reason Simone Carries Jesus's cross it because when Jesus and the Soldiers made their way out They MET Simon along the way and FORCED him to carry the cross because Jesus was no longer able to carry the cross because of the beatings that he took.
Matthew's Gospel cuts out the scene of Jesus carrying the cross but makes it clear that when they made their way they MET Simon of Cyrene meaning someone else was carrying the cross before they MET Simon. Which is confirmed in Johns Gospel that Jesus carried his cross, John simply cuts out Simon's carrying of the cross because untimely it was Jesus who carried his cross.
So again I don't understand how these are supposed contradictions.
But Let's continue
Brown then objects to the Passages in Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2 as to whether Jesus was dressed in scarlet robe or purple robe.
Here the Passages Matthew 27:28 28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him
And In John 19:2 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe
This Passage may seem contradictory at face value.
But If you Just read the Bible it actually gives us an answer and this what Brown didn't want you to read.
We Read in Exodus 39:1 39 From the blue, PURPLE and SCARLET YARN they made woven garments for ministering in the sanctuary. They also made sacred garments for Aaron, as the Lord commanded Moses.
So the Bible gives us an answer that even in the Old Testament they made Sacred Garments/Robes from the Colors Purple and Scarlet from YARN.
Yarn is like a string where you can make material using multiple colors
So it clear that the robe that Jesus Wore was both Scarlet and Purple but John decided to round it out and say it was purple which is true but that doesn't mean that it wasn't scarlet as well.
While Matthew rounds it says it was Scarlet which was true as well but that doesn't mean it wasn't purple either.
In fact here is an example of a Scarlet/Purple made from Yarn
Here it is : 
As you can see it looks Purple but it also looks Scarlet as well, For example let's say you drive a Car that's Black and White however the Black color dominates the White color for you. And someone asks you what color is your Car and you answer and say it;s black,that doesn't necessarily mean that there are no other colors on your car, It Just means your rounding out the color of your Car.
So I don't understand how this is a supposed contradiction because as you can see the ball of Yarn is purple but is Scarlet as well or in other words it's both but Just because you round it out to Purple doesn't mean they aren't other colors on it as well.
So I don't see how this is a supposed contradiction on Brown's Part.
Let us continue:
Brown makes Disputes In the Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23 whether the Soldiers put Myre in Jesus's wine or Gall.
Let's Read the Passages
Matthew 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.
And In Mark 15:23 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.
Again the answer to this supposed contradiction is that both Myrrh and Gall were added to the Wine.
Matthew decides to say that it was Gall but leaves out other information and Mark decide to say it was Myrrh and leaves out the information that they put Gall.
Again not a contradiction
Let's keep going
Brown brings about the verses Mark 15:25 and John 19:14-15 on whether Jesus was crucified before the third hour or after the sixth hour.
This one is quite simple because we both know that Mark and John wrote in different time frames.
Mark Wrote in the Jewish Time while John Wrote in Roman Time
Roman time is Identical to our time the Sixth hour would be from 9am-12am
And in the Jewish Time the third hour which is from 6am -9am.
Now this seems contradictory but you also have to take that Jewish timing can also be Third Watch which according to Jewish time is 12am- 3am.
In fact the Gospels agree with each other in the manner because when we read:
Mark 15:1 1Very EARLY IN THE MORNING, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
2“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
And in John 18:28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was EARLY IN THE MORNING, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
So it is quite clear that both Gospels agree on each other on the time of the Events In Marks Gospel it was EARLY IN THE MORNING when the Chief priest took Jesus to see Pilate. And in John's Gospel it was also EARLY IN THE MORNING, when the Chief Priest took Jesus to see Pilate.
And in Jewish Time Morning and Night are the same.
So it's possible that Mark may have actually meant Third Watch which is 12am-3am instead of Third Hour but even tho we don't exclusive know what the exact time of the day Mark and John are referring to. It is clear from the verses that Jesus was put on the cross the same time from both Gospels as they perfectly agree with one another.
So much for Brown's "contradictions", For a More thorough response on the subject visit here : http://workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html
Let's continue
Brown says Did Jesus ascend the First day or not Luke 23:43 and John 20:17
Let us Read
Luke 23:43 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
And John 20:17 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Now this is probably one of the more easiest to answer because In Luke when Jesus speaks to the criminal and says you will be with me in Paradise, we Christian go Amen because Jesus First of all is God who is all Powerful,All present,All Knowing,ect.. So Jesus did see him in paradise because he is God himself but he was also Man and therefore his body died and was put in the tomb. And in Johns Gospel when Jesus speaks of ascension he speaks of a physical ascension with his glorified body after he died and rose from the Dead. Or in the other words Jesus came to earth as Man or descended and went to heaven as Man (Glorified) or ascended, So I don't know where Brown is getting this supposed contradictions because he's making a blank case.
Last but not Least Brown says what were Jesus Last words Father into your hand I commit my spirit or It is finished in Luke 23:46 and John 19:30
Let's read the passage
Luke 23:46 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[a] When he had said this, he breathed his last.
And in John 19:30 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.”With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
The answer is that Jesus said both we do not know which order he said these words but it's clear that Jesus said all these words but again both authors telescope and cut out events or sayings of Jesus but that does not mean that it didn't happened.
Luke focuses on the loud call of Jesus while John focuses on Jesus gentle words, it's more probable that Jesus said It is Finished simply because he finished the Father's work.
So after all these attempts made by Brown regarding the supposed "contradictions" in the Bible Fall Flat to the Ground of Jesus Christ.
And Paul Williams once Again proves his religion to be False because according to the Koran Allah send down the Torah and the Gospel to which Muslims are supposed to believe in and yet he contradicts his own Religious sources and teaching and therefore proves his religion to be False.
So it is clear that when you read the Bible these supposed contradictions can be answered by the Grace of God.
I will make a Refutation to Browns Article Where is the "Christ" in Christianity Part 3
They will be More
God Bless
No comments:
Post a Comment