rhutchin

A question related to the passover meal! Certainly not on purpose.

Can you repeat it?

rhutchin

How do you see this as an issue of interpretation?

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following post that I made in the thread on the rapture, which you conveniently vacated when you got into trouble:

By the same token, perhaps you could explain why you believe what you believe. Please start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum and state why you believe what you believe. If you do that, I will start a new thread there and state why I believe what I believe. Readers can rest assured that you will refuse to do that which you asked me to do, which proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

If you refuse to state why you believe what you believe, how can skeptics adequately reply to your arguments?

Please do not make false statements. A web definition for the word "substantive" is as follows:

"substantial: having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable; "substantial equivalents."

According to that definition, you have refused to reply to many substantive arguments that I have made. The following issues are most certainly important and meaningful:

1 - The flood. You believe that a global flood occured. A few days ago, I told you about a thread about the flood at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259291 at the Evolution/Creation Forum. You made a couple of posts, quickly realized that you were in trouble, and conveniently took the next bus out of town. The claim that a global flood occurred is utterly absurd. In order to believe the claim, a person has to abandon common sense, logic, reason, history, and science.

2 - Inerrancy. Although inerrancy is the basis for most of your beliefs, you have always conveniently refused to discuss it because you did not want to embarrass yourself. Inerrancy is merely an appeal to emotions, and yet you have claimed that Christians should not abandon common sense, logic, and reason. Although inerrantists have accused skeptics of wanting God to act like they want him to act, they (inerrantists) have an emotional need to have God act like they want him to act, and that includes providing Christians with inerrant texts. Inerrantists can easily image a God who kills babies and innocent animals, but for some odd reason they cannot imagine a God who would not inspire and preserve the Bible. If, as many Christians claim, God is not obligated to save anyone, he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts, which invites the question "Why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?"

3 - Firsthand, eyewitness accounts. I said:

You conveniently refused to reply to those arguments.

4 - Opinions and speculations. Consider the following:

As you know, a few days ago I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259452 at the General Religious Discussion Forums and quoted what you said. The title is "How is the Bible not the personal opinions of the authors?" You conveniently refused to make any posts in that thread.

As you know, a few days ago I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259383 at the General Religious Discussion Forum and quoted what you said. The title is "A fundie says "Speculation proves nothing and never will." You conveniently refused to make any posts in that thread.

You are obviously afraid to go to the General Religious Discussions Forum because much greater latitude and variety are allowed at that forum than at most other forums. If you do not have any intention of going to the General Religious Discussions Forum to discuss anthing, please say so.

Consider the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - A global flood occured.

3 - The Ten Plagues occured in Egypt.

4 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

5 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

6 - Jesus never sinnned.

7 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

Those are very important claims. Now will you please tell us why those claims are not the personal opinions of the authors, and why the claims are not speculative? Obviously, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 must be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected. Common sense, logic, reason, science, and history cannot be used to verify the claims. Regarding claims 2 and 3, history and science, including archaeology, do not back up the claims. It is incredible that for years you have claimed that arguments from skeptics are personal opinions, and are speculative. I do not know of any claim that is more speculative than the claim that the Bible is inerrant, with the claim that a global flood occurred running a close second.

Many skeptics are quite interested in the process that led to you rubber-stamping hundreds of Bible claims that do not have any basis at all in science and history.

End of post

Since it is well-known how evasive you are, it is a given that you will not discuss what you said in the thread that I started at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259383 at the General Religious Discussion Forum. I accept your implied admission of defeat.

You asked for something substantive, I gave you plenty of issues that are substantive, and you refused to discuss the issues and conveniently vacated the thread. You are obviously not confident of your debating abilities. I have debated you for several years, and you have been evasive on many occasions. You are nothing more than light workout. No one should take you seriously. The only reason that I reply to any of your posts is to try to prevent naive, easily led people from being influenced by your ridiculous arguments.

By the way, since you are a Calvinist, I invite you to participate in a thread that I started at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=260065 at the General Religious Discussions Forum. I doubt that you will participate in that thread since you are not confident of your debating abilities.

Deus Ex

The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on 15 Nisan. If the lambs were slain on Friday night then the Thursday meal on 14 Nisan would not have been a passover meal. It would not have been the first meal of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Passover

Also note the Korban Pesach(Paschal Lamb) is eaten on the first night of passover. There is no way the Thursday meal was any kind of passover meal, which directly contradicts the synoptics.

Further, Bart D. Ehrman, is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In his book: Jesus-Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, He mentions the passover contradiction in Chapter 2 of the book. He concludes that there is a contradiction between John and the Synoptics. I will take his word over yours.

rhutchin

OK. So it seems that the 14th is the passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread than begins on the 15th.

There is no contradiction between John and the synoptics. The problem concerns the reference by Jesus to eating the passover meal on Thursday evening.

Do you know what it was that Ehrman said was the contradiction?

Doug Shaver

I am quite happy to analyze each author's writing within its individual context. I will not presuppose that every author agreed, about anything, with every other author.

I will read it on the assumption that every author believed that a god existed. I will not assume that every author believed the same thing about that god or about the extent or exact manner in which that god had intervened in human history.

rhutchin

OK. Can you also not presuppose that every author did not agreed, about anything, with every other author?

OK. Do you have a problem not assuming that it is not possible that every author believed the same thing about that god or about the extent or exact manner in which that god had intervened in human history?

Jayrok

No. You are the one that is confused.

Mark 14:12 -- On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him...

Luke 22:7-8 -- Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

Do you have trouble comprehending these words?

It was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is a fact not in dispute.

The Jewish "Day" began at sunset and ended the following sunset. This is also not in dispute.

Therefore... Jesus was standing in the street talking to his men on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread. On this "same Day" the lamb was to be killed. The first day of the Feast did not "begin that night after sunset" as you are claiming. They were standing in street alive and well near the end of that first day.

The day began the night before. They killed the lamb that same afternoon Jesus told his disciples to go secure the room for the meal.

As Deus Ex also points out, the passover meal was eaten that very night. Ergo, Jesus and his men ate the Passover Meal that night (Thursday night) after the lamb was killed earlier that afternoon (Thursday afternoon).


They agree on no such thing. They only agree that the preparation for the Sabbath was on Friday. Different preparation day.


wrong again. It was slain on Thursday in the synoptics and on Friday in John alone.

This goes against the law. The lamb was eaten the night after it was slain, not the night before it was slain.

Your explanation violates the law and as such is implausable.

The lamb was slain on the 14th day of the month. Do you think the 14th day of the month always falls on Friday? Some years passover was celebrated on Tuesday.

Your claim breaks Jewish law because you have them slaying the lamb a full day after Passover.

rhutchin

John and the synoptics agree on the physical events that take place because each describes them in the same order. They are:

1. Thursday evening - Jesus and His discipels eat supper together.
2. Thurs-Fri - Jesus and His disciples go to the garden where they are met by Judas and the temple guards.
3. Friday morning - Jesus is interoggated by the high priests, Pilate and Herod.
4. Friday - 9:00 am - Jesus is crucified.
5. Friday - 12:00-3:00 PM - Darkness over the land
6. Friday afternoon before 6:00 pm - The body of Jesus placed in a tomb
7. Each refers to this time as the "preparation" or the "day of preparation" which we think refers to the preparation leading up to the ritual sacrifice of the pascal lamb in the temple and this occurs sometime Friday afternoon.
7. Friay 6:00 pm - the Sabbath begins

Within the context of these physical events, John and the synoptics make some comments with which we are dealing.

John states on Thursday evening at the supper:

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father,... And supper being ended,... (John 13:1-2)

And after the sop Satan entered into [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast;.... He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (John 13:27-30)

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and [the Jews] themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. (John 18:28)

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: (John 19:14)


The synoptics tell us.

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. (Luke 22:1)

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luke 22:7)

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?...And in the evening [Jesus] cometh with the twelve. (Mark 14:12-17)

And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. (Luke 22:8)

And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? (Luke 22:11)

And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: (Luke 22:15)

And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. (Luke 23:54)

And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. (Mark 15:42-43)

The issue seems to focus on John who says that the "feast of the passover" is yet to come while the synoptics refer to the Thursday supper as the passover. The synoptics do not tell us that, "[the Jews] themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." Unless John had told this to us, we would not know it.

So, is it possible for Jesus to eat the passover with His disciples on Thursday night and the Jews to be eating the passover on Friday?


From the physical order of events and reference to the "preparation" by John and the synoptics, the sacrifice would occur between 6:00 pm Thursday evening and 6:00 pm Friday evening. Given the statements above, it probably occurred close to Friday evening at 6:00 pm.

Timing is the issue here. Given the physical events cited and reference to the "preparation," the discussion between Jesus and His disciples must have taken place after 6:00 pm on Thursday when it was still daylight.

Because of the reference by both John and the synoptics to the "preparation," we must conclude that they know that the pascal lamb was to be sacrificed on Friday afternoon.

The only real issue is to explain how Jesus can eat the passover with His disciples on Thursday evening and John can write that this occurred before the Feast of the Passover (and before the pascal lamb was actually slain as the synoptics confirm). Was Jesus wrong to think that He could eat the passover with His disciples on Thursday night? Was John wrong to think that the Feast of the Passover would occur later and to describe how the Jews would not enter the Judgment Hall so that they could eat the passover?

The synoptics clearly refer to the "preparation" as John does so they clearly state that the pascal lamb is not slain until after Thursday evening. The synoptics also clearly state that Jesus ate the passover with His disciples on Thursday evening.

What we find is not contradiction but the absence of information that we need to determine what has happened. The synoptics have no problem telling us that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on Thursday evening (the beginning of the first day of Passover) and then stating that this was the day of preparation when the pascal lamb would be sacrificed at the end of the first day of Passover. What they do not tell us is the rationale for Jesus and the disciples to be eating a "Passover" meal on Thursday night when the Jews would be eating it later on Friday. We may be confused about all this, but John and the synoptics are not confused and their accounts agree on the events that occurred.

Doug Shaver

Sure, I can do that, too.

Hmm. Lemme see . . . Can I assume that it is possible that . . . ? Uh, yes. I can do that, too.

Maybe I can try putting it this way. What I assume, when I read the Bible, is that the men who wrote the original documents, and the editors who worked on those documents, and the redactors who produced the versions of those documents that we now possess, were all just ordinary human beings, with the same abilities we all have but only those abilities, subject to the same faults and shortcomings that afflict us all, and no less influenced by their cultures than we all are influence by our own culture.

Can you suggest any reason why I should assume anything more than that about them?