- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Adam,
Lets look at the facts. The fact is that according to the Accounts there appears to be two Passovers. Then the question becomes how is that possible. The answer I came up with by reading the entry for Passover in wikipedia is that different Jewish Traditions have different callanders.
I have no difficulty believing the Jews of Gaalee and the Jews of Jerusalem may well have different traditions and so different callenders. Galilee was possible heavilly Samaritan ethnicity but Jewish by aliegence and that may be one reason they clung to the callander used by the Samaritans.
The only one of the 12 that was not from Galalee was the traitor. I could be wrong as I am going from memory but I do know Jesus is from Galalee.
The problem here is not about the different calenders the problem is about the motiff behind the story that is narrated by John who wanted to show Jesus' death was the Passover. Synoptics were not having that motiff they were only concentrating that Jesus celebrated Passover as usual as a Jew but they never intended Jesus' death to be a Passover.
Adam.
You have no evidence to back up the hypothosis that John was attempting to show Jesus' death was the Passover. I believe John like the rest of the gospel agree that the leaders of the Jerusalem wanted Jesus dead before sunset because that was the first day of their Feast of Unleavened Bread, a traditional High Holy Day.
Paul might of made the connection because he, unlike John, was a Pharisee.
John was from Galilee.
The Problem:
According to NT scholars, John’s Gospel places Christ’s crucifixion before the Passover meal.1 The reason for this placement stems from such verses as John 18:28 and 19:14. In John 18:28, Christ is said to have been put on trail before Pilate on a day when the Jewish crowd would not enter because they did not want to defile themselves, for the purpose of remaining ceremonially clean that they “might eat the Passover.” From this, the chronology of events seems rather clear: Christ began his trials leading up to his crucifixion before the Jewish Passover meal. John 19:14 further reinforces this by noting that Pilate’s verdict sending Christ to be crucified fell on the “day of preparation for the Passover.” Here, the “day of preparation for the Passover” seems to state clearly that Christ was sentenced to death before the Passover, on the day when preparations were made for the Passover. Both of these verses from John’s Gospel seem to clearly suggest that Christ was crucified before the Passover meal.
However, the Synoptic Gospels clearly locate Christ’s crucifixion as occurring after the Passover Meal (i.e. Mark 14:12).
The evidence is clear in John since he wanted to show Jesus die on the eve of Passover. Please read Jn 18:28 and 19:14 the evidence is crystal clear what else you need. The synoptics did not have such motiff therefore they agreed that Jesus celebrated passover already previous night. Even the first writer of NT Paul had such motiff of showing Jesus as passover lamb which is no way related to sin atonement. Are these not contardiction on part of Christian writers? They came up with different Christologies to prove their idealogies. I see NT as mere human book and nothing to do with God's inspiration.
Adam,
Who are these anomynous New Testiment Schoolars you speak of and what authority do they have to correctly interpret scripture. I do not acknowledge that authority because it did not come from God. In other words what you are doing is making a call to authority fallacy.
Mark 15:42 also refers to it as Preparation Day. So does Matthew 27:62 and Luke 23:54. The say Sabbath because God states the first and last day of the week of the feast of Unleaven Bread are supposed to be a Sabbath or Holy Day to him. John calls it a high Sabbath instead of just a Sabbath.
Your experts seem unaware of the fact that there are more than one Jewish calander and that different traditions of Jews may use different calanders.
It is obvious from reading scripture that he and the Pharisees are of different tradition since he tells his students to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Saducees, Luke 16:12.
Hi brother Kerwin,
You blame the NT scholars like Bart D. Ehrman the world honors him. What evidence you are having that the accounts are not contradictory? I have shown you number of arguments on how the Gospel writers differ themselves on Jesus story. Here is another like those;“Mark identifies the time as Passover and the meal as a Passover meal — he is very explicit about this. There are a number of aspects of the meal that are consistent with traditional Jewish Passover: drinking wine, eating at night, singing a hymn at the end, and interpreting elements of the meal.
On the other hand, there are also a number of elements that are very notable for their absence: no bitter herbs, no Passover lamb, and no telling of the story of the Jews’ being led out of Egypt. If we are reading about a Passover meal, it’s bizarre that none of these would even be mentioned in passing.
There are also other problems stemming from the chronology that Mark uses: Jewish law forbids holding trials either on a feast day or on the eve of a feast day, which is exactly what Mark describes as happening here. Either Mark is incorrect (perhaps rearranging historical events in order to fit them in with theological or apologetical needs) or the Jewish authorities are acting in an illegal manner. It is perhaps for these reasons that John, unlike the synoptic gospels, places this meal before Passover.
Another problem lies in Mark’s description of the killing of “the passover” (the Passover lambs) on the first day of unleavened bread. This is incorrect — the slaughter of the lambs would have taken place on the eve of Passover itself. Mark, who was probably a Hellenized Jew living outside of Palestine, probably should have known this so why make this error?”
Could you see those allegations? Your using of different calenders is bogus on part of Christianity to harmonise Gospel accounts as a last resort which was not at all mentioned in the accounts. It is same as assuming the Virgin birth and Genealogies accounts which Christianity wanted to cover up by bringing interpretations from out of NT assumptions.
Adam,
Bart D. Ehrman considers himself an agnostic which means he is obviously not guided by the Spirit of God and so is not qualified to interpret scripture correctly.
He is also biased, being a disciple of Walter Bauer, thoughhe may even corrupt Baurer's view as Baurer may have had at least a smidgeon of truth in his conjectures.
Ehrman makes the same error here that I mentioned elsewhere in that he assumes that the Pharisees and the movement of Jesus used the same callenders. That assumsion cannot be proven and contradicts the evidence. It simply was not a feast day for the Pharisees and was not until dusk of the day Jesus died. Mark even states that by speaking of Preparation Day for the Sabbath. The Sabbath being the Feast Day.
Quote (942767 @ May 22 2010,12:24) Quote (gollamudi @ May 21 2010,16:37) That is an honest confession brother Kerwin, that's why I always like your posts here in this forum. Infact I also have doubts about Jesus' sinlessness. Paul says in Rom 8:3 “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man”. If Jesus never tasted any sin then there is no meaning of saying Jesus had experience all our weaknesses and informities. I feel Paul was talking like a docetist to say God sent His son in the likeness of sinful man without really becoming one. Even what brother Marty quoted above from Phil 2:6-9 is also docetism claiming Jesus appeared as human like us. This is where I get frustrated of Paul's Christology. He also talks about Jesus some how involved in creation of this universe along with God the Father as he claimed in Col 1:16 and 1 Cori 8:6. Don't you think this is deviation from the religion of Hebrew scriptures?
This is the reason why there are many sects in Christianity and that's why we are here to waste our time to claim and couter claim our personal biased views.Hope you will understand my agony.
Peace to you
Adam
Hi Adam:Jesus did not create. God created every thing that he created with Jesus in mind.
And if Jesus sinned, there is no resurrection from the dead because the wages of sin is death, and all of humanity who have been born of the sperm of man have sinned and fallen and fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus was not born of the sperm of man, but was born of the Spirit of God, and is God's gift of love to humanity.
I have a personal testimony that Jesus did not sin because I have been raised from the dead (spiritual separation from God) by the Spirit of God who dwells within me.
But the scripture also states:
Quote 1 Co. 15:12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hey numbers/martyquestoin, (i know im late and this is a old post)
but what do you think about Colossians, chapter 1 where it says that Christ created everything?Quote (kerwin @ June 17 2010,19:06) Adam, Bart D. Ehrman considers himself an agnostic which means he is obviously not guided by the Spirit of God and so is not qualified to interpret scripture correctly.
He is also biased, being a disciple of Walter Bauer, thoughhe may even corrupt Baurer's view as Baurer may have had at least a smidgeon of truth in his conjectures.
Ehrman makes the same error here that I mentioned elsewhere in that he assumes that the Pharisees and the movement of Jesus used the same callenders. That assumsion cannot be proven and contradicts the evidence. It simply was not a feast day for the Pharisees and was not until dusk of the day Jesus died. Mark even states that by speaking of Preparation Day for the Sabbath. The Sabbath being the Feast Day.
Hi brother Kerwin,
What spirit is required for inquiring into the written scriptures? People can become agnostic or atheist based on all these contradictions in the scriptures. You are avoiding my questions and repeatedly bringing out Mark's so called preparation day which could mean even preparation for weekly Sabbath after Friday's crucifixion. It is very clear that Mark' vesion says Jesus already eaten Passover and was crucified on the afternoon of first day of unleavened bread (15th Nissan) where as John says he was crucified one day in advance that is on the exact day of preparation of Passover (14th Nissan). Don't you think you can not harmonise them inspite of your so called dual calender method?Another argument:
When Did Jesus Eat the “Last Supper”?Many people have wondered whether Jesus ate what is called the “Last Supper” on the evening when the Jews ate the Passover lambs, or if he ate his “Passover” meal on the evening before. The question arises because there seems to be a contradiction between what Matthew, Mark and Luke say, and what the Gospel of John tells us.
For example, Matthew 26:17 says: “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ ” The first three Gospels seem to indicate that Jesus and his disciples ate the “Last Supper” meal on the evening beginning Nisan 15. That is when the Jews would have been eating their Passover meal—on the beginning of the first day of Unleavened Bread. (See also Mark 14:12-16 and Luke 22:1, 7-8.)
However, John clearly states that the Jews had not eaten the Passover meal, even though it was the morning after Jesus’ arrest. John 18:28 says: “Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.” John 19:14 says that the day during which Jesus was crucified was only the “Preparation [day] of Passover Week.” By John’s reckoning, Jesus ate the Last Supper meal one day earlier than the Jews ate the Passover meal.
Because of this seeming contradiction between the first three Gospels and John, scholars continue to wrestle with the issue of when Jesus actually ate his final meal. Of course, the term “Passover” was often applied to the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread, not just Passover day, so Jesus’ eating of a “Passover meal” could have occurred at any time during the festival season. However, it does seem that the time of the traditional eating of the Jewish Passover—on the evening of the beginning of the first day of Unleavened Bread—occurred just as Jesus was being put in the tomb. Hence, the chronological question about Jesus’ eating the Last Supper remains.
Various explanations have been offered to solve the puzzle, which are beyond the scope of this article to consider. The interested reader can peruse several commentaries, such as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matthew, for a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the various solutions that have been put forth. The author of one such commentary on Matthew in the Tyndale New Testament series, R. T. France, presents a practical approach to the problem:
The simplest solution, and the one assumed in this commentary, is that Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early. . . .Of course it was strictly incorrect to hold a “Passover” at any time other than the evening of Nisan 14/15 [that is, at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th], but Jesus was not one to be bound by formal regulations in an emergency situation! . . . .It was therefore a Passover meal in intention, but without a lamb [page 365].
Do you agree with such logics?
Adam,
I have not avoided any points you have made but rather challenged them head on but stating that all four gospels claim that Jesus dies on the Preparation Day of a Sabbath.
Here is an explanation about preparing for the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
I do not believe you have to prepare for the weekly Sabbath except for getting the food you plan to eat that day ready beforehand. According to this there is some preparation but certainly not a day.
You on the other hand have avoided finding out more about why certain Jewish traditions have different callenders and about witness testimony.
But you have not addressed the contradictions of the Gospel like what Mark says in 14:12 or John says in 18:28,19:14. There you are avoiding the errors.
Adam,
I have addressed them by advancing the hypothesis that those of the Messianic movement of Jesus held to an older version of the Hebrew Calender also followed by the Samaritans. That Calendar is often out of sync with the modern Jewish Calender.
One error with my hypothesis which is not critical is that the modern Jewish Calender was developed in the Fourth Century and thus after the events in scripture.
I state this is not critical because the first day of the year was determined by the Sanhedrin based on two reliable eye witness accounts. They would then inform the people. Thus the Samaritans probably determined theirs different and the people of Galilee though giving their allegiance to the Jerusalem Church were neighbors of the Samaritans. In fact it is known that other Jews did not always follow the rulings of the Pharisees.
angelfire.com reads:
Quote In addition, the Samaritans and the Sadducees each had their own calendars. The Samaritan calendar fixes the first day of the month by the conjunction of the moon with the sun, not by the new moon, and their months are numbered, not named. Although the Samaritan calendar adds an extra month for leap years seven times in a 19-year cycle like the Jewish calendar, unlike the Jewish calendar, months are not added or intercalated at set intervals. Even the Jews of certain communities didn't always follow the calendrical rulings of rabbis. For instance, the Syrian Jews of Antioch from 328 C.E. to 342 C.E. always celebrated Pesach or Passover in March, regardless of rabbinical calendrical rulings in Israel.
I am not sure how this difference of religious opinion effected the celebration of the Passover with different groups celebrating it on different days but the Temple most likely accommodated them for a price.
In other words Mark 14:12 is speaking of the Feast of Unleavened Bread according to how the followers of the Way celebrated it while John 18:28 was speaking of it according to how the Pharisees followed it. The two dates are different.
The follows of the Way just were not of the same tradition as either the Pharisees or the Sadducees and thus cannot be expected to necessary have the exact same beliefs though they did share some.
Here is the rest of my source.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,19:32) Quote (942767 @ May 22 2010,12:24) Quote (gollamudi @ May 21 2010,16:37) That is an honest confession brother Kerwin, that's why I always like your posts here in this forum. Infact I also have doubts about Jesus' sinlessness. Paul says in Rom 8:3 “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man”. If Jesus never tasted any sin then there is no meaning of saying Jesus had experience all our weaknesses and informities. I feel Paul was talking like a docetist to say God sent His son in the likeness of sinful man without really becoming one. Even what brother Marty quoted above from Phil 2:6-9 is also docetism claiming Jesus appeared as human like us. This is where I get frustrated of Paul's Christology. He also talks about Jesus some how involved in creation of this universe along with God the Father as he claimed in Col 1:16 and 1 Cori 8:6. Don't you think this is deviation from the religion of Hebrew scriptures?
This is the reason why there are many sects in Christianity and that's why we are here to waste our time to claim and couter claim our personal biased views.Hope you will understand my agony.
Peace to you
Adam
Hi Adam:Jesus did not create. God created every thing that he created with Jesus in mind.
And if Jesus sinned, there is no resurrection from the dead because the wages of sin is death, and all of humanity who have been born of the sperm of man have sinned and fallen and fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus was not born of the sperm of man, but was born of the Spirit of God, and is God's gift of love to humanity.
I have a personal testimony that Jesus did not sin because I have been raised from the dead (spiritual separation from God) by the Spirit of God who dwells within me.
But the scripture also states:
Quote 1 Co. 15:12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hey numbers/martyquestoin, (i know im late and this is a old post)
but what do you think about Colossians, chapter 1 where it says that Christ created everything?
Hi SF:Here is colossians 1 relative to this:
Quote 12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Verse 13 indicates that Paul is speaking of the Kingdom of God's dear Son who is the image of the invisible God, and through whom we have redemption by his blood.
When was he the image of the invisible God? When could we speak about his blood being how we are redeemed?
Obviously, he is speaking about Jesus as the man the last Adam. That God is the creator is clear from Genesis 1.
The following verses of scripture indicate that Jesus was foreordained:
Quote 17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
The following verse says that all things were created “for him” indicating that someone did the creating “for him”. It does not say that all things were created “for himself”.
And so, my conclusion based on the scriptures is that God knew from the beginning that at a certain point in time, he would conceive a Son through whom he would redeem mankind to Himself. God created every thing “by him”, that is with him in mind, and “for him”, he is God's heir.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (kerwin @ June 18 2010,09:19) Adam, I have addressed them by advancing the hypothesis that those of the Messianic movement of Jesus held to an older version of the Hebrew Calender also followed by the Samaritans. That Calendar is often out of sync with the modern Jewish Calender.
One error with my hypothesis which is not critical is that the modern Jewish Calender was developed in the Fourth Century and thus after the events in scripture.
I state this is not critical because the first day of the year was determined by the Sanhedrin based on two reliable eye witness accounts. They would then inform the people. Thus the Samaritans probably determined theirs different and the people of Galilee though giving their allegiance to the Jerusalem Church were neighbors of the Samaritans. In fact it is known that other Jews did not always follow the rulings of the Pharisees.
angelfire.com reads:
Quote In addition, the Samaritans and the Sadducees each had their own calendars. The Samaritan calendar fixes the first day of the month by the conjunction of the moon with the sun, not by the new moon, and their months are numbered, not named. Although the Samaritan calendar adds an extra month for leap years seven times in a 19-year cycle like the Jewish calendar, unlike the Jewish calendar, months are not added or intercalated at set intervals. Even the Jews of certain communities didn't always follow the calendrical rulings of rabbis. For instance, the Syrian Jews of Antioch from 328 C.E. to 342 C.E. always celebrated Pesach or Passover in March, regardless of rabbinical calendrical rulings in Israel.
I am not sure how this difference of religious opinion effected the celebration of the Passover with different groups celebrating it on different days but the Temple most likely accommodated them for a price.
In other words Mark 14:12 is speaking of the Feast of Unleavened Bread according to how the followers of the Way celebrated it while John 18:28 was speaking of it according to how the Pharisees followed it. The two dates are different.
The follows of the Way just were not of the same tradition as either the Pharisees or the Sadducees and thus cannot be expected to necessary have the exact same beliefs though they did share some.
Here is the rest of my source.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Your hypothesis is a blunder. You mean to say Jesus was crucified on two days? One as per Mark on 15th Nisan and other as per John on 14th of Nisan. Mark is not at all aware of Jewish traditions when the Passover has to be prepared. He wrongly claimed Passover had been prepared on first day of the unleavened bread. You are simply ignoring such blunders stating that those are God's words. Your different calender system will not be permited to anybody within Jerusalem since the Passover has to be prepared as per community as well as Temple is involved. I want to quit this discussion here since it yields no fruit.Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam,
It yields no fruit because you are not reading my sources or if you read them you chose not to believe them. If the Saducees and Pharisees went by different callenders as my last source states then it holds that even in Jerusalem itself there was a difference of opinion on the issue as both those groups are known to have been present there.
The Passover feast and held on the First Day of the Feast of Unleaven Bread which is a high holy day for the Jews. With different calenders in effect different groups of traditions of Jews would celebrate the Passover on different days. It is my belief the Temple most likely accomidated a wide variety of Jews from different traditions. Even today there are different Jewish traditions that use different callenders.
Jesus was executed on the Passover of Pharisee tradition and one day after the Passover of the Way. It is also known as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread to those of the way and one day before the high Sabbath of the Pharisees known as the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Pentecost would also be Preparation Day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Here are a couple of other scriptures that deal with the Passover and may have a bearing on properly interpreting the sciptures in the New Testiment we are addressing.
2 Chronicles 30:22 and Ezekiel 45:21.
I obtained these from another individual who found them on a site that pointed out that the whole period of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is sometimes called Passover.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Coming back to the subject of the thread “Human Sacrifice”- here is how Christianity misinterprets Jesus' death as an atonement made by a Jewish High Priest.“The NT teaches that the Lord Jesus is the believers’ High Priest:
“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17
“Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” Hebrews 3:1
“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin.” Hebrews 4:14-15
Thus, it only makes perfect sense that the risen Lord, much like the OT high priest, would atone for ALL the sins (both the intentional and the unintentional ones) committed by his people.”
I want to ask you how Jesus' death which was alleged to be a Passover death had become human sacrifice of a high priest who make atonement for sin once a year on the day of Yom Kippur? Is it not contradictory in NT theology?
Adam,
Do you understand the Jewish concept of self-sacrifice.
Here is a profile of one Jew who risked his very life to do what he believed was right. I consider him a heretic but I do not question his zeal and perhaps that zeal did come from a heart that hungered and thirted for righteousness though he traveled in the darkness of ignorance.
If Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn had died instead of being freed then he would of sacrificed his own life and so sacrificed a human by means of the authoritie of U.S.S.R. Why is his attempt at human sacrifice considered noble by these Jews instead of ignoble?
Jesus also face a similar choice and chose to die in order to seal the new covenant that would bring many freedom from disobedience to God. In freeing many from their bondage to disobeying God he reconciled them to the one God who is all Righteous. That is what makes him a high priest superior to the high priests of the House of Aaron, as they cannot free anyone from their bondage to disobeying God.
Hi numbers/Marty,
I believe your idea is incorrect and not scriptural.
please read this thread and make your reply here.
i already addressed this point here:https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=3246
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
