bacht

If you really believe that then you also shouldn't be using computers or electricity or penicillin or anything else invented since 1611

You're welcome to live in the past. The rest of us will carry on into the third millenium.

Jayrok

This explains a great deal.

Jayrok

It's like we're taking crazy pills.

I'm sure he does believe Quirinius was Governor of Syria on two occasions. I met one other person that insisted Jesus must have cleared the Temple with a whip more than once. I was under the delusion too for a time, before I really started reading the Bible.

Jayrok

Correct. As such, the day of preparation for the Passover was Wednesday evening through the afternoon on Thursday prior to evening. That's what I said. And that's when Jesus told them to prepare the room.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You just stated (above) that the Feast of Unleavened Bread, also known as the Passover, began on Thursday night. As such the preparation, including the slaughter of the lamb, occured on Thursday afternoon. This works for the synoptic narrative because Jesus and his crew ate the Passover on Thursday night.

The Passover Lamb was slain on Thursday during the afternoon in preparation for the Passover Feast on Thursday evening, in which Jesus participated.

John is the one who has everything a day later.

Of course. Passover began Thursday but John altered his tale to have Passover begin on Friday evening.


Imagine that.

Yes, the first day of the feast was Thursday and everyone was "preparing" for the Passover Feast... Jesus and his disciples included. This preparation included killing the lamb. So the lamb was slain on Thursday. Glad you agree.

Wrong. The Passover Lamb was slain on Thursday during the preparation day for the feast. We went over that.

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 killed the lamb on the first day of the Feast which was the "same" day the disciples prepared the room for Jesus. They didn't kill the lamb the next day, that goes against Mark 14:12.

Sure there is. The basis is because Thursday was the day of preparation for the Passover Feast (Mark/Matt/Luke) and as part of the preparation, the lamb for the feast was slain. We just went over that again.

They all ate Passover Meal on Thursday night. This is why the Jewish leaders didn't arrest Jesus until later that night, after the ritual meal of the feast. They ate the Passover Feast also. See Mark 14:2. The Jewish leaders wanted to arrest Jesus, but not "during the Feast". This obviously didn't mean during the entire week of the feast. It meant during the feast, or meal, itself. Because everyone was observing the passover meal.

They ate unleavened bread for 7 days after this but the ritual meal was the first night of the Feast... Thursday. So the authorities waited until later that night, after the meal, to arrest Jesus in the garden.

Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly disagree with you.


A better explanation is that John disregarded the synoptic accounts not worrying about harmonising with them for his purposes. He didn't have their written accounts before him because he doesn't use them... thus, he is not part of the synoptics. He likely heard the story orally that Jesus was killed on Passover weekend and he wrote his version that Jesus was the passover lamb and was sacrificed himself for the feast.

aa5874

Absolute fiction. You cannot show that a soul can live.

What is a soul? How old is your soul? And if you do not have a soul or if you lost your soul how would you know?

Can souls be switched at birth?

You don't know, yet you make statements as though you live in some other unknown world with the dead.

John 3.16 is foolishness, the passage was a false promise, if Jesus was just a man, or mythical tales, if assumed to be a God.
,

rhutchin

And you cannot show that souls do not exist and do not exit the body on the death of the body. So, you have your faith; I have mine. I can see from your comments that you are a man of great faith.

rhutchin

I don't think there is any leeway on the day of preparation (if we are referring to the ritual killing of the pascal lamb. The feast of unleavened bread begins on the fourteenth day of the month (beginning Thursday at 6:00 pm in the event under discussion) and the pascal lamb is slain after the evening of the fourteenth and before the evening of the 15th day. The preparation for the passover would never be th 13th day. It would always be the 14th day. Jesus told the disciples to prepare a room for the passover meal (actually the preparations and already been taken care of) and Jesus and the disciples did participate together in what Jesus called the passover meal. As you have already noted the formal passover meal (feast) would not take place until Friday evening.

This is not possible. The feast of unleavened bread begins on the 14th day of the month. The pascal (passover) lamb would always be slain on the 14th day (that would begin at 6:00 pm on Thursday) so that is the day of prpearation. The synoptics agree on this as noted in these verses,

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,... (Matt 27:62)

And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,... (Mark 15:42)

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

This agrees with John when he writes, The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. (John 19:31)

John records the passover feast to take place on Friday evening. This is because the feast of unleavened bread begins on Thursday and the pascal lamb would be slain before Friday evening.

That there was a passover meal on Thursday seems to be the case. However, the ritual killing of the pascal lamb would occur on Friday. It is probably true that a lamb was slain on Thursday afternoon, but this had nothing to do with the formal ritual.

Can't do it. The law specified that the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on the 14th day of the month. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread began at 6:00 pm Thursday. The ritual killing of the pascal lamb would then have to occur on Friday. It could not occur prior to that time. It seems that the occurrence of the sabbath following the preparation day allows for two passover meals, one on Thursday night and one on Friday night (and thus on the sabbath).

The law does not allow for your conclusion. If you can work your theory to fit the law, then you have a point; otherwise, it can't happen.

aa5874

When something does not exist, there is NOTHING to show.

If souls cannot be seen, heard or have no known effect, then it is reasonable to consider souls non-existent or legendary fables.

Souls cannot be deemed to exist by default or by faith.

Analyst

It is up to those who assume there is a soul to prove it.

Can you prove that humans do not contain an invisible, undetectable, inverse doppelganger?

Doug Shaver

And what is a real investigation supposed to do? It is supposed to convince people that they should presuppose the Bible to be inerrant, right?

There is much evidence to the contrary. Small sample: Dan Barker; Farrell Till; Bart Ehrman. Those people, and countless others like them, grew up believing the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. The more they studied it, though, the harder it got for them to hold on to that belief.

So, four stories that look contradictory if told by eyewitnesses will not look contradictory if told by people relying on the testimony of other people?

Then I might have misunderstood you. Could you please clarify what you meant by "It is God who moved men to write (in their unique styles and their limited vocabularies) and to say one thing but leave out another" and explain how it does not imply that the gospels were written the way God wanted them written?

Credibility does seem to lie in the eye of the beholder, yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.