- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ June 15 2010,22:02) Adam, Your interpretation skills are lacking. If you read the Law then you would know that the Jewish Day goes from dusk to dusk and so just before Passover would be the same time the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. This would mean that the the lamb was already sacrificed at that time as it is sacrificed before Passover.
You are trying to argue that John is stating that Passover occured on Sabbath beginning with the dusk just after Jesus was laid in his tomb. In Chapter 19 John does testify that it was a special Sabbath because it was a high day which is one of the High Holy Days of Judaism. That would make is 15 Nisan which is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It would contradict Christian tradition as it would not be a Saturday but rather a Sunday. That may of course be an error of the King James version though the NIV does call is special.
I just do not see the support for that supposedly Christian teaching even if we are to take the book of John is issolation.
Please read my last post it was explained by an orthodox Jew. They know clearly when the Passover lamb has to be killed. I also know when the Jewish day starts and I am not lacking any skills here. But I am seeing the cleverness of Christian writer who wanted to make Jesus' death as a Passover sacrifice even by deviating from the other earlier accounts. You are only justifying human attempts to show as God inspired.Hi Adam,
I would comment here, but I dont know enough about it to, im sorry.
I really wish I could help.
Im having a -blank mind- night…(too much thinking)
Adam,
For an Orthodox Jew your source made a basic error about the Jewish day which goes from dusk the night before to dusk to the following day. This means Jesus sacrificed himself on the same day that he had the last supper. According to the book of Law the Passover Feast is to be held on the evening or between the evenings of the Fourteenth day of the First Month of the Jewish Calender, Leviticus 23:5, which I have been informed is 14 Nissan. I get the idea but have not been able to confirm that 14 Nissan is always a Saturday which is why I stated that Christian tradition may be mistaken about which day of the week he was crucified.
There error puts a hurting on your source's argument even if we ignore the fact he misinterpreted John for his own purposes.
Did you notice that in attacking John he gave witness to the other gospels being accurate.:D
webexhibits.org reads:
Quote A Jewish-calendar day does not begin at midnight, but at either sunset or when three medium-sized stars should be visible, depending on the religious circumstance.
Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.
Here is my source.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Could you understand the basic difference between the synoptic Gospels and John? Mark, Matthew and Luke say Jesus celebrated passover as usual (on 14th Nissan) along with other Jews and next day I mean on the first day of of the Festival of unleavened bread (on 15th Nissan) Jesus was crucified whereas John says he had last supper in the evening of 14th Nissan which was not Passover meal remember Jews have not killed the passover lamb so far so Jesus was crucified on the 14th Nissan (afternoon) as alleged by John at the appropriate time as per Jewish calender thereby he proved Jesus as Passover Lamb. Passover lamb has to be killed at twelight on 14th of Nissan it need not be a Sabbath(saturday as you wrongly assume). So John made it happen Jesus' death at the same time. You can see the evidence in John 18:28 wherein it says Jews have not yet killed the Passover Lamb so that they can eat. Your Jesus in John he had not participated in Passover meal but only an evening meal as per Jn 13.So don't you see how the NT writers developed their Christology by incorporating Jewish scriptures to fit their ideas?
Adam,
That is certainly an interesting scripture. Since Jesus and his disciples celebrated Passover a day earlier than the Pharisites it would seem they are probably an ancestor movement to the Karsite Jews as well as Christians as they are not Samaritans. It is known the Karsite Jews and Samaritans use a different version of the Jewish Callander which is out of sync with that of the Pharisees. That would be Abib or Aviv 15. The Calander is an older vesion that the Pharasite tradition and its decendants does not use any more.
If so how will you harmonise those contradictions on determining the day of Passover for Jesus to be killed comparing both accounts I mean synoptics and John?
John and the Synoptics compared:
John is significantly different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. Some of the differences are:
Jesus is identified with the divine Word (“Logos”) and referred to as a god (but not as “the God”).[111]
The gospel of John makes no mention of Jesus' baptism,[42] but quotes John the Baptist's description of the descent of the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist publicly proclaims Jesus to be the Lamb of God. The Baptist recognizes Jesus secretly in Matthew, and not at all in Mark or Luke. John also denies that he is Elijah, whereas Mark and Matthew identify him as Elijah.
The Temple incident appears near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In the Synoptics this occurs soon before Jesus is crucified. The author probably had a theological motive for putting the Temple incident near the start of Jesus' ministry because it emphasizes Jesus' opposition to “the Jews,” a theme in John.[59]
Most of the action in John takes place in Judea and Jerusalem; only a few events occur in Galilee, and of those, only the feeding of the multitude and the trip across the Sea of Galilee are also found in the Synoptics.[42]
The Gospel of John contains four visits by Jesus to Jerusalem, three of which associated with the Passover feast. This chronology suggests Jesus' public ministry lasted three or two years. The synoptic gospels describe only one trip to Jerusalem in time for the Passover observance.
Jesus washes the disciples' feet instead of the Synoptics' ritual with bread and wine (the Eucharist).[6][42] Foot washing might have been a local initiation ceremony instead of baptism.[82]
The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded as Nisan 14 in contrast to the synoptic Nisan 15. Many scholars consider it more historically plausible that Jesus was executed the day before Passover rather than on Nisan 15.[5] The author might have chosen this date to associate Jesus with the Passover lambs, which are slaughtered on Nisan 14.[59]
The earthquake and the Crucifixion eclipse, mentioned in Matthew, are absent.[6]
No other women are mentioned going to the tomb with Mary Magdalene.[citation needed]
John does not contain any parables, that is stories each illustrating a single message or idea.[112] Rather it contains metaphoric stories or allegories, such as The Shepherd and The Vine, in which each individual element corresponds to a specific group or thing.
Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet discourse.[113]
While the Synoptics look forward to a future parousia (second coming), John presents an eschatology that has already been realized. The most plausible theory is that the references to a futuristic eschatology, such as John 5:25–28, represent corrections added after the gospel was written.[114]
The Kingdom of God is only mentioned twice in John.[115] In contrast, the other gospels repeatedly use the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven as important concepts.
The exorcisms of demons are never mentioned as in the Synoptics.[42][115]
John never lists the Twelve Disciples and names disciples not found in the Synoptics. While James and John are prominent disciples in the Synoptics, John mentions them only in the epilogue, where they are referred to not by name but as the “sons of Zebedee.”
Thomas the Apostle is given a personality beyond a mere name, as “Doubting Thomas”.Quote (gollamudi @ June 16 2010,12:53) If so how will you harmonise those contradictions on determining the day of Passover for Jesus to be killed comparing both accounts I mean synoptics and John?
The Jews have different traditions which would account for the so called differences you think you see. Jesus and his disciples followed the older Jewish Callander favored that is used by Karisite Jews and Samaritans while the Pharisees use a newer Jewish Callender. It is like a disagreement between those using the Gregarian and those using the Julian Callender. In this case the disagreement causes one tradition of the Jews to celebrate the Passover a day earlier than the other while John records the practices of both traditions without explaining that they have different beliefs.It is possible he did explain but we have trouble understanding as the people of Jerusalem may have celebrated the later callender date and they would be called Jews while Jesus and most of his disciples came from Galatia and thus may have had different customs.
Adam,
It is known that different eye witnesses of the same event will give different accounts of that event. I see no reason to quibble over details and differences in points of view.
If your take away from the temple incident is that Jesus opposed the authorities or people of Jerusalem then you missed the whole message of that scripture even though Jesus explicitly stated it.
Quote (kerwin @ June 16 2010,18:36) Quote (gollamudi @ June 16 2010,12:53) If so how will you harmonise those contradictions on determining the day of Passover for Jesus to be killed comparing both accounts I mean synoptics and John?
The Jews have different traditions which would account for the so called differences you think you see. Jesus and his disciples followed the older Jewish Callander favored that is used by Karisite Jews and Samaritans while the Pharisees use a newer Jewish Callender. It is like a disagreement between those using the Gregarian and those using the Julian Callender. In this case the disagreement causes one tradition of the Jews to celebrate the Passover a day earlier than the other while John records the practices of both traditions without explaining that they have different beliefs.It is possible he did explain but we have trouble understanding as the people of Jerusalem may have celebrated the later callender date and they would be called Jews while Jesus and most of his disciples came from Galatia and thus may have had different customs.
So you mean to say that Jesus and his disciples gathered there for celebrating Passover differently irespective of what was going on in the Second Temple. So how do you harmonise Jesus' death as Passover offering as alleged by Paul and assumingly by John? It is all speculation on part of you and Christianity to harmonise the contradictions. These writers are none but human beings who could make their theology based on their imaginatiuons. Please accept the truth that there are variations.Quote (kerwin @ June 16 2010,18:41) Adam, It is known that different eye witnesses of the same event will give different accounts of that event. I see no reason to quibble over details and differences in points of view.
If your take away from the temple incident is that Jesus opposed the authorities or people of Jerusalem then you missed the whole message of that scripture even though Jesus explicitly stated it.
Infact no direct eye witness had narrated those incidents rather they did through their oral traditions which developed during four to six decades after those incidents actually taken place. Then why claim God's inspiration on such human errors?Adam,
What evidence do you have that no direct eye witness narrated the events?
You have none.
I can say in some cases that the writers of a gospel did not witness the event themselves but rather gave account of what they are told by others. The birth of Jesus is an example of this. You can easilly tell that Mary is the one whose account Luke because it is told from her point of view and mentions that she remembered the incidents. In Matthew on the other hand Joseph is the one giving the accounts. This matches up with the accounts since Matthew was one of those called by Jesus while Luke was a Gentile called to the way after Jesus' death when Joseph no longer seems to be on the scene.
Now that we speak of Luke he mentions that others have written biographies of Jesus prior to himself though he does not mention whom. He does though also write the book of Acts and tells of his personal travels with Paul. Paul agrees that Luke traveled with him for a time.
So I am not even calling the gospel the Word of God but rather historic accounts that were rendered by those who either traveled with Jesus or converted to the true Hebrew religion after his death.
So please do not try to feed me a line of garbage that contradicts the plain testimony of the witness accounts from Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. It as if you are accusing the New Testiment writers of having a giant conspiracy that spread for miles and over years. What did they use cell phones and computers to keep connected?
If you wish to discuss witness testimony or some of its branches then that is fine and will probably be productive. If on the other hand you wish to continue to make baseles accusations like the Devil and his servants then it is a waste of my time.
Please read this allegation:
JESUS: THE PASSOVER LAMB; ABRAHAM AND EASTERChristians claim that essentially the whole Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, in some way points to Jesus. They do not let facts stand in their way!
Christians know that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements for sacrifices specifically mentioned in Leviticus Chapter 4. However, in their minds―the Christian clergy―Jesus did fulfill the “concept” of the Passover lamb. Christians do not let facts stand in the way of their illogical thought process; it makes absolutely no difference to them that the Passover lamb was NOT to atone for sins! It also makes no difference that a male lamb is not used for sin offerings. Chapter 4 explains exactly why the blood of bulls and of goats was to no efficacy in itself.
The Christian bible, their New Testament (NT), has so totally mixed up, blended and confused Jewish Laws and customs that it is absolutely ridiculous! NO knowledgeable Jew would ever take anything from this set of lies and distortions seriously. Therefore, calling Jesus a lamb means that either he did NOT atone for any sins, or if Christians would want to keep to this notion of taking away sins, then Jesus should have been referred to as a sacrificial goat.
A goat somehow resembles the Christian (false) perception of the sa’tan. And regarding a human sacrifice, the Torah absolutely forbids that. The whole Christian idea of Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of others are totally farfetched, fabricated, invented and stands in direct opposition against Jewish Law, the Torah from God. Strange, whenever you ask a Christian to show in the “Hebrew Bible” where it states that sacrifices would be a reminder of a greater sacrifice to come, Christian fundamentalists say they will get back to us, but never do.
The death of Jesus in no way resembled the sacrifices as described in the Tanakh. Sacrifices were only acceptable for sins committed unintentionally, so Jesus could not have been a sacrifice for “all” sins. Besides, a sacrifice had to be free from physical defects―Jesus was circumcised, which is something Paul called “mutilation.” Therefore, Jesus was unacceptable as a sacrifice; he was blemished. Jesus was no sacrifice to God for sin, except perhaps for his own sins! Yes, he had sinned (more on that is available in other articles).
For some unknown reason, in the Gospel of John, John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” which has since been appropriated by Christian theology as “the Passover Lamb” who died for the sins of the world (John 1:29). John, if he was Jewish, would have known that was impossible. This scripture slip exposes that John the Baptist was not Jewish. In fact, he endorsed a form of pagan cannibalism, and the response he got from his Jewish followers showed that they rightly thought Jesus was an ignoramus!
Then [Jesus] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Upon hearing all this, many of his Jewish follows left and returned to Judaism. (John 6:53-58)
Jesus’ own disciples, fools though they were, knew that eating the flesh of a man was wrong.
Jesus could not have been the Paschal Lamb sacrifice, because he was claimed to be a sacrifice for sins, and the Paschal Lamb sacrifice had nothing to do with sin. Besides, none of Jesus’ blood was smeared on any door-post or lintel. None of his flesh was actually eaten (though he offered it to his foolish disciples, knowing that would have been cannibalism.) The Paschal lamb was to be eaten, and none of it saved. Jesus was no Paschal Sacrifice (Passover Lamb)―PERIOD!
God showed the Jews, through the Torah, God’s SOURCE DOCUMENT, that animals are for killing and eating, not for worshipping. The Sacrifices were not required by God to remove sin from man, but to remove the ram, cow, and lamb, which were all animals venerated by pagans of the day, from veneration.
Thoroughly exposed for the false projection of Jesus as any sacrifice, Christians then point out that in Genesis 22, God asks Abraham to offer his son Isaac on MountMoriah as a human sacrifice. Then at the very last moment God stops him before he actually kills Isaac. Christians conveniently ignore that God stopped Abraham, thus showing that human sacrifices are not required, desired, or permitted! Christians will shoot back that Isaac was old enough to know what's going on, and asks his father where the sacrifice is, and Abraham answered that “God will provide for himself the lamb.” Therefore, prophesying Jesus the Lamb of God. WRONG again, because God did provide the sacrifice for Abraham – right then and there, not in the future of some Jesus character.
Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son (Genesis 22:13)
Why then should anyone believe the above could ever refer to the dead demigod, the dead-man god Jesus?
The mount where Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son was the TempleMount, inside the walls of Jerusalem. God was there again when the Holy Ark was housed in the Temple, filling the Sanctuary with the Shekinnah (his Holy presence).
Wasn’t Jesus put to death outside the city? YES!
Source: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=54490
Adam,
Why do you avoid speaking about witness testimony? Are you set on attacking Scripture for no good reason? If you wish to understand instead of finding fault with then shouldn't you investigate the issue more thoughly than taking the word of a known foe? Why would you trust such an obviously biased source? Are you willing to answer any of these questions even to yourself?
I read the first line of your last source and as far as I know it is untrue as I have hear no Christian state that the whole Hebrew Bible points to the Anointed One. Even if some do claim that I would have to know the context of what they were saying before I could test if what they state is true.
Now according to scripture sacrifices a symbol of the self-sacrifice of the Anointed One which means they merely stand for or suggest his self-sacrifice. That is assumming the NIV translated the word correctly.
The context is important so I would have to look at the actual teaching to go any more detail. The problem is that we never really finished our last discussion about eye witness testimony. You did better on the one previous about John's account of the Feast of Unlevened Bread which I found productive.
Rabbi Tovia Singer said:
“The Torah never states or even implies that the Passover sheep or goat atones for sin. Christians will often claim that Abraham was referring to the Paschal lamb (Genesis 22:7-8). What lamb? What happened to the lamb mentioned that Abraham promised? It was a “ram” that was offered up to God – where was the lamb to which Abraham was prophetically referring? Christians will say, “big deal, lamb or ram, they mean the same thing. But that is not true – Since Torah was written in Hebrew, there are two different Hebrew words for ram and for lamb, and if that’s not enough, in Hebrew one must read the content of the sentence, before and after.”
“Just as God tested Abraham’s faith to show his worthiness to be the father of the chosen people, the young Jewish nation also had to have their faith tested to show their worthiness to participate in the exodus form Egypt, to receive God’s Torah at Mount Sinai.”
Now, if Christians want a sin sacrifice, they only have to turn to Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish year. This is the day Jews pray to God for forgiveness for their “cheit” (errors – sins). But if they do, Christians would have to follow God’s rules. Jews sacrificed an unblemished female goat as a “korban,” in this case a sin offering, for atonement.
So how much reliable are Christian scriptures?
Adam,
Instead of facing sincere questions you would rather immerse yourself in the teachings of those looking for faults in the doctrine of the Anointed One because of their unbelief.
Does scripture teach that the Passover lamb is sacrificed for sin. I doubt it very much and so that whole post was waste of both my and your time.
Paul is the only one who addresses Jesus as a Passover lamb and that in 1 Corinthians 5. Looking at the context it does not seem to indicate he is using the Passover lamb for the Messiah because of the forgiveness of sins but rather in declaring that Christian are called out of the world and therefore should not participate in the ways of the world any longer.
Your source in short displays an ignorance of New Testiment Scripture and at best is countering heresay by false Christians.
Now if you would continue in our conversation about witness testimony then perhaps we can get something contructive accomplished.
Quote (kerwin @ June 16 2010,21:57) Adam, Instead of facing sincere questions you would rather immerse yourself in the teachings of those looking for faults in the doctrine of the Anointed One because of their unbelief.
Does scripture teach that the Passover lamb is sacrificed for sin. I doubt it very much and so that whole post was waste of both my and your time.
Paul is the only one who addresses Jesus as a Passover lamb and that in 1 Corinthians 5. Looking at the context it does not seem to indicate he is using the Passover lamb for the Messiah because of the forgiveness of sins but rather in declaring that Christian are called out of the world and therefore should not participate in the ways of the world any longer.
Your source in short displays an ignorance of New Testiment Scripture and at best is countering heresay by false Christians.
Now if you would continue in our conversation about witness testimony then perhaps we can get something contructive accomplished.
So you agree that Jesus was not the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of world since he did not die on the day of atonement and you agree that Paul was at fault in claiming Jesus as the Passover lamb. Christianity made Jesus fit into Hebrew scriptures to prove their imaginations. The result is utter confusion.Adam,
I agree that I am not going to support the false claim about what John the Baptist declared made by an antagonist when creating a straw man he could then knock down.
I have already pointed out that John the baptist was probably speaking of a guilt or sin offering and even then he was generalizing.
It certainly did not take a rocket scientist to understand what he meant and the only ones that would have trouble understanding him are those with a biased agenda.
Now if you are through looking to find fault with scripture and instead wish to understand it then I would enjoy discussing witness testimony which is considered to be sounder than circumstantial evidence but not the strongest evidence due to the limits of human nature. We can also discuss why the Pharisee sect and their descendants decided to use a different calender than had been the tradition for Jews.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Let us come back to discussion on Passover;
According to Exodus 12:3 the Passover lamb must be separated on the “10th day of the Month” therefore, they(Jews) must observe a full cycle of the moon to determine when to hold the Passover. They cannot merely hold it on the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. It must be observed after the first New Moon after the Equinox, then count 10 days, and 14th, and 15th, then always the Passover falls on the Full Moon.The commandment to keep Passover is recorded in the Torah in the Book of Leviticus:
“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD'S Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work”. (Leviticus 23:5)
Biblical regulations for the observance of the festival require that all leavening be disposed of before the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. An unblemished lamb or goat is to be set apart on Nisan 10, and slaughtered on Nisan 14 “between the two evenings”, a phrase which is, however, not defined. It is then to be eaten “that night”, Nisan 15, roasted, without the removal of its internal organs with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Nothing of the sacrifice on which the sun rises may be eaten, but must be burned. The sacrifices may only be performed in a specific place prescribed by God.
According to Synoptic Gospels Jesus celebrated Passover on the night of 15th day of Nissan and he was crucified on the afternoon or evening of the same day (15th Nissan) whereas John disagrees with them and places Jesus crucifixion on the 14th day of Nissan may be exactly at the time of preparation of Passover as alleged by him. So how do you harmonise such discripancies which were developed based on theological and Christological grounds. John never claimed that Synoptics were wrong. It is purely your speculation that Jesus was following different calender. If so why John claims Jesus was killed on the so called Passover preparation day set by (false) Jews?
Can there be logic in such arguments?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
