aa5874

What is to be reconciled is John 3.16 and the written statements of the authors of the NT.

Jesus, according to gJohn, is the son of a God, this supposed God Jesus follows Jewish practices, he is circumcised on the eight day, and he took part in the Jewish passover, so Jesus would, to an observer, be a Jew, he encouraged others to follow Jewish practices.

Yet he wanted other Jews to believe in him, that when he Jesus was dead he could save them from their sins.

This is completely contradictory, Jesus appears to be a fraudster. The supposed Jesus was actually involved in, and followed Jewish practices, for his entire life on earth, that his own teachings must abolish.

Why does a God have to perform rituals that he came to abolish?

John 3.16 is a lie, a false promise. If Jesus was a man, he was a con-man.

Jayrok

Yes they do disagree. John does NOT say Jesus ate the passover meal with the disciples on Thursday night.

Please take note of John 13:1-30 with special note to verse 29. It is before passover and they are at a regular evening meal. This is NOT the passover meal. Jesus stops and takes time to wash their feet, then sits back down to the table.

Verse 29 is telling and is a fatal blow to your argument.

John 13:29 -- Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.

Judas was in charge of the money so when Jesus told him to do it quickly (that is, betray him) the other disciples thought he was telling Judas to buy what was needed FOR THE FEAST... The Passover Feast which was still a day away.

Don't you see... this meal is not the passover feast because, according to John, the passover feast was Friday night, the next day. Why? Simply because Jesus was the Pascal lamb and had to be killed prior to that feast.

John specifically changed the story to fit his version, thus contradicting the synoptics.

rhutchin

The feast of the passover supposedly ran the full seven days of the feast of unleavened bread. That feast would have begun on Friday evening following the killing of the pascal lamb and would run for the seven days. So, now, we have Jesus and His disciples eating a meal on Thursday evening on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. John describes the events of this meal, the taking of Jesus following the meal and His crucifixion on Friday at 9:00 in the morning. The synoptics agree with this order: meal, Jesus taken, crucifixion.

When Judas is sent out, the thinking of the disciples is that he is being send out to prepare for the following evening (and perhaps, the rest of the week's activities). The remaining disciples then continue listening to Jesus as they take part in the meal.

The issue here is whether the meal in which Jesus participated with His disciples could be called the "passover" meal since John does not call it that, even though his description of the events of that night agree with that which occurs during a passover meal. Thus, Luke records that Peter and John went to prepare the passover that then took place on Thursday night. Earlier, Luke tells us...

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

...identifying the seven day feast of unleavened bread with the passover so that the passover was a seven day celebration. The feast of unleavened bread would have begun at 6:00 pm on Thursday so that the meal in which Jesus and the disciples participated could be called a passover meal as could any of the meals eaten in the seven day period. Luke records...

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. (Luke 22:7-8)

As we read this account, we find that the meal described as the "passover" by the synoptics takes place on Thursday night during the feast of unleavened bread (which is called the Passover). John does not describe this meal as the "passover" but refers to the normal passover activities that will take place beginning Friday night.

Other than the issue of whether the synoptics could properly describe the Thursday night meal as a "passover" meal, there is no problem and certainly no contradiction.

rhutchin

Aw, shucks!!!

Perhaps you might read Jayrok's posts in this thread as a good example of how to weave substantive comments into an argument that actually says something. Follow his example and you too can develop posts that inspire a response.

Jayrok

You see in it what you want to see but I suspect underneath you see the problem. The pride in your desire to defend your inerrent worldview trumps your ability to accept that John had a different agenda than the synoptics for this portion of the story.

I think we can agree here that the passover meal was eaten on Thursday night by Jesus and his disciples as described in the synoptic gospels. So the issue is whether John's meal on Thursday was also considered the "Passover" meal. You claim it was the same meal, I'm saying it was not the same meal.

My view (of John's story) is that Jesus intended the disciples to have the passover feast the following night. This is after his death during that day as the pascal lamb.

The meal John describes them eating on Thursday night was not the passover special occasion meal. Notice that John does not include the Eucharist ritual in his account. Instead, he replaces it with a few moments of washing the disciples feet.

Jesus does this because this meal isn't anything special (to John). John's emphasis is on the washing of the feet. The meal is just a setting to get the disciples together. John does not want to have Jesus say "Do this in remembrance of me... etc" because this meal was nothing special (in his story).

If this had been the passover feast he would not have sent Judas out to buy food for the passover feast. They'd have already eaten it!

But here's the thing...

Thursday night was the passover feast and thursday afternoon, the "Day of preparation for passover" was the day they killed the lamb. Don't confuse the "Day of preparation for passover week" with "Day of preparation" for the sabbath.

So there are two problems here:

1. John considered Jesus the passover lamb to be sacrificed. Since he died on Friday, the day of prep to John, the meal on Thursday night could not have been the passover meal. That is why John doesn't call it that and that is why he omits the Eucharist ritual of "This is my body, etc".

2. The synoptics have the passover meal on Thursday night. That is obvious because they call it that. In the synoptics the passover lamb was slain on Thursday afternoon. Jesus was still alive. Ergo, Jesus was not the "passover lamb".

Another problem here is that Jesus would be required to fast the day before passover feast begins because he was the first born male in his family, his mom being a virgin and all... So if the passover feast was on Friday night, Jesus would be violating the law by eating on Thursday night.

John messed up. The synoptics are ok because they agree the passover was Thursday night and Jesus participated in it.

So if the passover meal was Thursday night, as we agree on, having Jesus die on Friday would not have made sense if he was the passover lamb because it was killed prior to the passover feast. The rest of the week they ate unleaven bread.

But that is why the synoptics say nothing about Jesus being the "Passover lamb". This is only found in John because this was part of John's theme throughout his story. He has John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God to set things up. The synoptics didn't take the story that way. Jesus was just another passover feast observer the day before he died. They are two separate stories.

It's similar to Jesus ejecting the money changers in the Temple courts. He didn't do it each and every time he went to Jerusalem. John has him do it early in his ministry, the synoptics have him do it after his triumphal entry into the city.

Face it, John is telling a different story with the same characters for a different reason and a different audience.

rhutchin

Describing the problem seems to be a problem.

John agrees with the synoptics that a meal was eaten on Thursday night. They all agree on the events: meal (Thursday night); interrogation of Jesus (Friday early Morning); crucifixion (Friday morning 9:00 am); Darkness (Friday 12:00-3:00 pm); sabbath begins (Friday 6:00 pm).

If it was not the same meal, it still had to precede all the events of Friday that John describes beginning with John 18. So, we have a meal that had to be on Thursday night that the synoptics call a passover meal and you have John saying was not the passover meal. Regardless, you and I still have the disciples eating a meal on Thursday night. The only problem is what to call it.

Given that John records in Chap 13, "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world..." it seems unlikely that Jesus was planning a meal on Friday night. However, even if we have Jesus planning such a meal, it obviously was overtaken by events; events on which John agrees with the synoptics.

That's fine but whatever we call the meal and whatever we think occurred during that meal, it occurred on Thursday night. That is clear from the agreement in the later events of Friday between John and the synoptics.

John may not want Jesus to say these things, but the synoptics record Jesus to say them and that He said them at the meal that occurred on Thursday night.

That's fine also. Anything planned after Friday afternoon becomes irrelevant.

Now, this is interesting. How do you arrive at this conclusion? That Friday was the "preparation" is clear from the events described by both John and the synoptics. How do you argue that it actually occurred on Thursday?

The synoptics call it a passover meal. You speculate in saying, "That is why John doesn't call it that and that is why he omits the Eucharist ritual of 'This is my body, etc'" as we don't really know why John omitted that part.

Both John and the synoptics have a meal on Thursday night. The synoptics call it a passover meal. John does not. Both the synoptics and John agree that the day of preparation preceded the sabbath. The passover lamb would have been slain on the day of preparation and that would have been on Friday "between the evenings."

Jesus was known to violate the law. This is not really an issue.

John may be faulted for not including information provided by the synoptics but nothing more.

We can't change the sequence of events. There was a meal on Thursday night followed by the crucifixion on Friday. It may not make sense to you but that is not a contradiction.

John does not call Jesus the passover lamb, but the symbolism is clear and we understand his point.

Yes, Jesus chased out the moneychangers twice, maybe three times. The last time time seems to have been the last straw that led to His crucifixion. Such is the effect of money.

Same story, different emphasis.

Jayrok

I understand the problem. You seem to be having trouble still. I'll try to do better.


In the synoptics it was the passover meal. They prepared for it earlier that day and Jesus officiated the Eucharist or Lord's Supper on Thursday night. This is confirmed in the synoptic gospels.

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, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

They sacrificed the passover lamb that afternoon Jesus told his disciples to follow the man with the jar of water. He was not the sacrificial lamb of passover.

The reasons the meal in John's gospel is not the passover meal are these:

1. John's theme is that Jesus is the unblemished lamb of God. He was going to serve as the passover sacrifice.

2. During the regular evening meal on Thursday night, Jesus talks with Judas and tells him to "do it quickly". The other disciples thought, since Judas held the money, that Judas was being sent to buy supplies for the passover... which had not yet begun.

3. John 18:28 -- 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.

Jesus is brought to the palace but the Jews didn't want to become ceremonially unclean so they stayed outside... because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover (which was Friday not Thursday according to John's story).

You mentioned above that all agree on: (1) meal, (2) arrest, (3) crucifixion.

But here in John 18, the text indicates that the Jews had not yet eaten the passover meal. So in John we now have 4: (1)Meal, (2)arrest, (3)crucifixion, (4) Passover Feast.

The Passover feast began on Friday in the gospel of John because Jesus had to die first. The meal he shared on Thursday night was simply an evening meal.

So the problem is the synoptics have Jesus eating the passover with disciples and dying after passover had already begun where John has Jesus dying before the passover feast began on Friday night.



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, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

Matthew 26:17 -- 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?"

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."

Preparation Day for the Passover was the day the lamb was sacrificed, which was Thursday before evening. In other words the "Day of preparation for Passover" was Thursday and Jesus send the disciples to go prepare a room.

Now the other "preparation day"...

Mark 15:42 -- It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached

Luke 23:52-54 -- 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

There were two different preparation days:

1. Preparation day for the Passover Feast kickoff (on Thursday)
2. Preparation day for the Sabbath (on Friday before sundown)

This was a special sabbath because it fell during Passover week. But they always prepared for any sabbath.

wow


Based on the same storyline but altered to make a fresh point.

rhutchin

Both John and the synoptics have Jesus eating a meal on Thursday night. The synoptics call it a "passover meal" but John does not. When Jesus sends Judas out during that meal, the disciples think that he has been sent out to prepare for "the Passover Feast" that would presumably take place on Friday night.

John and the synoptics agree on the events following the Thursday evening meal: interrogations, crucifixion, burial beginning after the meal and ending on Friday before the Saturday sabbath began at 6:00 pm.

Thus, when you say, "the synoptics have Jesus eating the passover with disciples and dying after passover had already begun," this reflects that the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread that Luke calls the Passover had begun at 6:00 pm on Thursday night.

When you say, "John has Jesus dying before the passover feast began on Friday night," this reflects that Jesus was crucified prior to Friday evening.

The issue seems to be whether the Thursday meal can properly be called a "passover meal" as the synoptics describe it. In this regard, it seems that the authors of the synoptics agree so who are we to say that they could not call it such?

Regardless, it is clear from both accounts that there was a meal on Thursday night no matter what we call it. I don't see the confusion over the proper name for that meal to be a contradiction.

I don't see where your "two preparation days" explanation means anything in terms of the events that occurred or identifies a contradiction. Certainly there can be confusion in the mind of the reader on that which "the preparation" refers to between John and the synoptics, but that does not constitute a contradiction.

Earlier you said, "The contradiction is that Jesus did indeed eat the passover meal with his disciples in Mark, Matt and Luke. But John changed the story for his personal message... that is, Jesus was himself the passover lamb."

I still don't understand how this constitutes a contradiction. That Jesus ate a meal on Thursday night that the synoptics describe as a passover meal and which John does not describe as a passover meal (and changed the story (i.e., gave different info about that meal) for his personal message) does not generate a contradiction in my mind.

Jayrok

Agree.

Agree.

Agree. Yes.

Agree. Yes. Note that John is the one who writes that Passover feast was to be on Friday. The synoptics have Passover feast on Thursday.

Disagree. That is not the issue. That meal was the Passover meal, I don't believe there is any dispute there. So it's not the issue.

There is no confusion over the name of the meal. That is not the contradiction.

The "Two preparation days" is also not the contradiction. They are simply pointed out to show the reader that there were, in fact, two separate days of preparation. No contradiction there, just textual evidence.

You are getting hung up on the naming of the meal. That is not relevent.

It is probably easiest to read John first by itself. When one reads John's gospel without knowledge of the synoptics he or she would reasonably come away with the conclusion that Jesus was the passover lamb that was sacrificed on Friday afternoon. Thus the beginning of the passover feast was on Friday evening. This view is strengthened in light of several passages in John's narrative. One telling passage is when Jesus is taken to Pilate's palace and the Jews wanted to participate in the upcoming Passover Feast so they did not enter the palace.

This indicates that Passover feast had not yet begun. That day (Friday morning) they were going to prepare for the passover, which included slaughtering the lamb.

I hope we can agree on this. So in John's account, we have Jesus/Disciples eating a meal on Thursday evening... Then Jesus gets arrested... then Jesus is crucified on Friday afternoon, the day the lamb was to be sacrificed.

That is John's account. To John, Passover Feast began on Friday night.

In contrast, the synoptics record that Jesus has Passover Feast with his disciples where he executes the Eucharist ritual. Thursday is the day of preparation for this feast and this is strenthened by those passages that say they were preparing for the feast and Jesus sends them to prepare the room. In other words, the Passover Lamb is killed on Thursday afternoon prior to this feast.

Passover meal (Thursday)... Arrest (Thursday night/early Friday morning)... Crucifixion (Friday afternoon).

If one reads just the synoptics, he or she would reasonably come away with the idea that Passover Meal was observed by Jesus and his disciples (The Lord's Supper).

In other words, Jesus was not the passover lamb in the synoptics. That lamb was killed on Thursday, Jesus was killed on Friday. Jesus does not play the role of the passover lamb in the synoptics.

But in John he is the passover lamb, so it is important for John to, of course, not have Jesus "eat the passover meal" with his disciples. So he tones it down regarding the Thursday meal and makes it a normal meal. His method to tone down the Eucharist ritual is to replace it with the washing of the disciples' feet.

If you try to harmonize these accounts to make it match one solid story, you aren't doing justice to the stories as a whole. In fact, if you try and weave them together you are inevitably leaving out a passage here and there and as such, you are creating your own gospel narrative.

They stand alone and are well written. There are contradictions in the various accounts but I believe they are there on purpose for the author to get his own points across... to tell his own version of the story. John had his own community of readers just like Matt, Luke and Mark had theirs. John isn't included in the synoptics because he didn't use any of the others as a source. He heard the story, no doubt, but wrote his tale the way he wanted.

I see no problem with that other than the result that the gospels were not written to reflect a line for line history. John was written for theological purposes, mainly that Jesus was the lamb of God sent to be sacrificed for the sins of man.

If you do not see the differences in the gospels I don't know what else we can do or discuss. But I've enjoyed this discourse at any rate. Thanks.

Jay

Doug Shaver

My point is that the contradictions seem clear to anyone who reads the Bible without presupposing its inerrancy. Even many apologists concede this point when they talk of the Bible's "apparent contradictions."

I'm not sure I get your point here. Are you saying that my analogy fails because the gospel authors were not journalists?

If I observe that John's account of some event is inconsistent with Mark's account and it is therefore unlikely that both accounts are true, it is not a counterargument to say "That is how God wanted them to report the event." You're begging the question.

That is the largest problem for all of you who presuppose its divine origin. For the rest of us, the largest problem with the Bible is that it just isn't credible.