Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All I'm trying to do is to get people to understand that John is in agreement with the other gospels regarding the fact that Jesus died on Passover day. I have provided the Scripture which proves this, and I have provided commentary which explains this.
What you are now doing is engaging in bickering. And I am not going to indulge you.
All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on Passover.
Mike has succeeded in fitting a square peg into a round hole with the Passover issue. I wonder if he can do the same with the differences in the Nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke.
I don't really know what all that means, I do however know that the Messiah had to be the fulfiment of many things or he was not the Messiah.
We can snap our fingers as fast as we can on both hands and make claims about a Messiah, but what is written is written, and the law is recorded.
It's not a thing that maybe this happened or that happened, things had to go just as the law and prophets say they are to go, and so they went.
Many people make claims that Jesus was the antichrist who came to do away with the law and the prophets, but this Jesus is not up for negotiations and opinions, he had to fulfill things according to the law or he was not the Messiah.
Many people can say,'' Jesus Jesus.'' but many people do not know Jesus because they don't tend to have the interest to look up all that was said and prophesied concerning him.
He had to be the Passover Sacrifice, the Shavuot sacrifice, the Yom Kippur sacrifice, the Sukkot sacrifice, the red heifer, and he was all these things.
Christians may blurt out a claim saying,'' Jesus was all the sacrifices.''
And while this is true, it is just said in general with the person unaware of what he is talking about.
Knowing Jesus is knowing what you are talking about, the feast days and Sabbaths and laws are God's instructions about his son.
There is no gray area, he either fit the bill, or he didn't.
Some Christians will actually try and prove that he didn't fit the bill, but some Christians do not know what they worship.
I know what I worship, I know the laws and feast days in order to have an opinion what Jesus was, or what he wasn't.
I don't know that He had to be all those things. Wasn't the fact that He taught loving one's enemies as oneself, being meek to inherit the kingdom of God, forgiving seventy times seven quite unique in that world? Isn't it quite unique in THIS world?
There are plenty of arguments in the OT that show some prophecies were regarding local, immediate situations. Our ability to see God in those is interesting--but one KNOWS God when he/she sees God in EVERYTHING. The evangelical christian world sees everything as classified into secular or holy, but to eyes that have been changed and renewed by God almost everything contains God. God is greater than the evil one, more prevalent than the evil one, more powerful than the evil one--and works in EVERY heart whereas the evil one chooses those who are blind to be his own tabernacle.
We see wars as evil. Having fought in one, I know how terrible they can be and how ugly it can turn the hearts of men. But God works in the midst of war. Dietrich Bonhoeffer died opposing Hitler and wrote some wonder philosophical/theological works that are still read and taught in seminaries. Men can quickly become prayer warriors in the midst of rockets and mortar shells falling around them. Christians learned to stand up for Jews during WWII---previously an oppressed group even in the U.S.
When churches were appalled at the Harry Potter series of books, I saw God working in them--because it contains much of the God story. And that is why it appealed to so many worldwide. The God story sans religion is STILL the best story in the world.
If one can't find God in the secular--it's because they haven't found God in their hearts.
Christ hung on the cross for three hours on Good Friday.
12:00pm - 3:00pm. The 12pm is the "6th hour" from 6am,
which was the reckoning point of the beginning of the new day (sunrise).
He died at 3pm. This is why 3am is the "devil's time". (opposite).
I don't know that He had to be all those things. Wasn't the fact that He taught loving one's enemies as oneself, being meek to inherit the kingdom of God, forgiving seventy times seven quite unique in that world? Isn't it quite unique in THIS world?
There are plenty of arguments in the OT that show some prophecies were regarding local, immediate situations. Our ability to see God in those is interesting--but one KNOWS God when he/she sees God in EVERYTHING. The evangelical christian world sees everything as classified into secular or holy, but to eyes that have been changed and renewed by God almost everything contains God. God is greater than the evil one, more prevalent than the evil one, more powerful than the evil one--and works in EVERY heart whereas the evil one chooses those who are blind to be his own tabernacle.
We see wars as evil. Having fought in one, I know how terrible they can be and how ugly it can turn the hearts of men. But God works in the midst of war. Dietrich Bonhoeffer died opposing Hitler and wrote some wonder philosophical/theological works that are still read and taught in seminaries. Men can quickly become prayer warriors in the midst of rockets and mortar shells falling around them. Christians learned to stand up for Jews during WWII---previously an oppressed group even in the U.S.
When churches were appalled at the Harry Potter series of books, I saw God working in them--because it contains much of the God story. And that is why it appealed to so many worldwide. The God story sans religion is STILL the best story in the world.
If one can't find God in the secular--it's because they haven't found God in their hearts.
Yeah it makes me angry when I try and watch Harry with my family around skalking and making noices about how evil they think it is to watch Harry, and Potter is a really good example of good and evil, and it is a movie where you can actually get lost in yourself and really feel the magic, like with the Matrix, the Matrix was no doubt a person's view of the Bible and real magic.
That feeling when the movie is over and you think just for a second that magic is real, and then you come back to the real world.
It's exactly that reason that I push people on, salvation is all fine and good, the majority are saved, I think good Muslims are saved, good Hindus.
Salvation is a broad way, it is right there in the outer court of Gentiles at the alter of burnt offerings.
That's all fine and well, but it is not magic, it is not a view to flying in the air, and this will really happen.
Salvation is not where you become Neo.
But a person has potential to move from that outer court to the first part of the Temple proper, and only Israel is allowed there.
But a person can also become a priest, and even a Levite able to reside in the Holy of Holies.
There are instructions how a gentile can become a priest, and a Levite, and if there are instructions, then it comes with instructions of a set plan to follow.
Those disciples who received the spirit and began raising the dead, and healing EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHEREVER THEY WENT received a spirit that was said to pass away, and did pass away, or there would have been no reason for the promise of the giving of another spirit.
There would be no reason for the spirit of Elijah to come and bring gentiles back as brides again.
But the spirit and rain of spirit is not only promised in the spring coming of the Lord, it is also promised in the fall season, and Shemini Atzereth is where you pray for this rain that had yet to fall.
The rain and giving of the spirit only falls at the second coming of Christ because the coming of the Lord is as the rain, 2 comings of the Lord, and two givings of the rain.
But we already know there are two comings of the Lord, but when exactly is the giving of the spirit promised in the fall?
Everyone who knows the days of Christ knows this day, the law begins and ends on this day.
Every Christian should readily acknowledge the promise of the giving of spirit in the fall season of rain at the second coming of Christ.
It is a promise that the entire universe and all of history has waited upon.
The dew is given in the first coming Warden, the dew fell when the spirit was given in the spring.
The promise of the rain in the fall is DOUBLE what was given at the first coming of Christ.
DOUBLE.
The Rain is such a flood in the fall, that only dew is prayed for in the spring.
When I watch Matrix, Neo is nothing compared to the magic that will happen in the promise of the spirit, and I hope in this promise like every single Christian waiting on magic.
The disciples only received the spirit because they were warned, and the only reason they were warned is because they were following simple instructions in order to receive the promise.
They were counting the omer right up until the day and hour.
That spirit was shared.
It is the same way with the promise of the giving of spirit in the future fall rain.
That Spirit WILL NOT BE SHARED.
DOUBLE The spirit and this is not just a promise of Joel, and other prophets, it is contained within the stories themselves, just as was given to Elisha..
Elijah had faith, But Elisha SAW WITH HIS OWN EYES.
A Christian who does not prepare and pray for the rain while watching the times and seasons will in no way receive the promise of Shemini Atzereth, how could he possibly?
Jesus will come to them like a thief breaking into their house{body}.
But Paul said that we have no fear of Jesus coming to us and taking us by surprise, because WE KNOW THE TIMES AND SEASONS AND WE WATCH THE TIMES AND SEASONS.
THAT WAS THEN, Not true anymore.
Jesus tells us if we will not watch, then we will not know the hour or the day because we did not watch.
Jesus gives us parables about this very thing, the servant put in charge of the household to give God's people MEAT in DUE SEASON will fail as a servant, he did not watch the times and the seasons, and he did not know the hour and day of the coming of his master, he is cut in half.
I strive to try and prepare people for a promise they can receive if they would only watch.
The entire world is going to say,'' Why didn't somebody warn us that we could receive a reward in the last days?''
We have been warned thousands of years, we should know the appointed visitation days which are missions of Christ, pertaining OUR PROMISES THAT WE HOPE IN.
After the servant is cut in half, then the kingdom will be as ten virgins.
Ten is a legal congregation, so just by saying,'' Ten,'' it is saying the congregation of believers in A HUSBAND.
They are the congregation of gentile believers in need of a marriage of redemption because Israel is already married to God.
HALF of Christianity will be unprepared, HALF.
They will absolutely beg the righteous virgins for oil, WHY?
Because the righteous virgins stand out in the world for good reason, magic has come to them because they prayed for the rain.
They knew the promise, while the foolish virgins didn't even know the name of the day the promise is given.
HALF of Christianity will go crazy because they beg the wise virgins for that shining and they will try to do anything to receive it, BUT IT IS NOT SHARED.
They gather the wealth of the world because they are so much in an uproar, and of course, who wouldn't try and gather the wealth of the world to at least try and obtain what had been given to those wise virgins.
I strive to warn at least one person, imagine if I just turn one person to obtaining a promise of spirit that is double proportion of what was given on Pentecost?
I doubt that I will even receive, only the few will.
It's interesting to read a thread that covers a conversation that is over two years long. The topic has been pretty well covered from every side but I couldn't resist throwing in my $.02 on some of the main themes.
1. The last supper - It seems pretty clear to me that this was the passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples. The synoptics all specifically mention that this meal happened on the day of unleavened bread. Mark and Luke add that this was the day that the passover lamb had to be killed. The parallels between some of the events in the synoptics with the meal recorded in John seem to indicate that it was the same meal in both cases.
2. The day of crucifixion - The troubles all begin with the last supper and what day that actually happened on. In the synoptics they are eating the meal soon after sundown on Thursday night (assuming the traditional days for these events). In John the pharisees have not yet eaten the passover when Jesus is crucified (Friday) which they were planning later that evening. Therefore we have two dates for the passover, the one Jesus celebrated with the disciples on Thursday night and the one the pharisees would eat on Friday night.
For me, the harmonization comes when we recognize that the OT regulations about when to kill and eat the passover meal seem to be a bit unclear. I'll admit that I only have a basic knowledge of Hebrew here but in Ex 12:6 it says that the animal is to be kept until the 14th day of the month and then slaughtered at twilight. The question becomes - on which evening is the animal killed? Is it killed at the beginning of Nisan 14 which begins as the sun sets on the 13th or is it at the close of Nisan 14 so that they are actually eating the animal after sundown which would technically now be the 15th.
Interestingly enough there are commentaries that indicate there was a difference of opinion on this matter between the pharisees and saducees. One group followed the earlier time frame while the other followed the later. If this is true, then there is no problem harmonizing the accounts and there is no need to tweak or re-interpret passages from either the synoptics or from John.
In essence, what seems to be happening is that Jesus ate the passover meal with his disciples on the beginning of Nisan 14. In making their preparations they would have followed the strict reading of Exodus and killed the animal at twilight (the beginning of Nisan 14) and then shared the meal later that night. Mainstream Judiasm likely followed the other reading of Exodus planning to slaughter the animals at the end of Nisan 14 to eat the meal on the first part of the 15th (ie Friday night). Because of the volume of animals needing to be slaughtered they probably began well before twilight which is why they were anxious to be done with the whole crucifixion as quickly as possible.
So I see there being two passovers mentioned between the synoptics and John but it's not because one or the other decided to change historical events to fit their personal theology. Rather there were already two distinct cultural approaches to passsover during the time of Jesus. The synoptics reflect what Jesus practiced and John emphasizes the mainstream approach.
3. Three days and three nights - This one always seems to trip people up causing them to try and rearrange the traditional Friday crucifixion to accomodate a full 72 hours in the grave. However, a careful reading of the passages relating to this topic will clear things up. There are three passages where the three days time period is mentioned prior to the crucifixion. Mark 8:31 (which doesn't contain a direct quote but a paraphrase that he began to teach that "he must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, be killed and rise after three days.") John 2:19 says, “Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'” Then there's Matthew 12:40 which says, “for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
The one that really gives us trouble is the three days and three nights. Even counting portions of a day as a full day (inclusive reckoning) it's pretty hard to get anywhere close to the 72 hours that seem to be implied by this passage. Here's where a careful reading is so important. Did Jesus actually say he would be in the grave for three days and three nights? Look closely. He did not. Instead he uses a rather strange phrase and says that he would be "in the heart of the earth." He also referenced Jonah's experience as an example of what he was talking about.
Now go back and read the prayer of Jonah while he was stuck in the great fish. You'll see something interesting. “Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. And he said: ‘I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And You heard my voice. For You cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the floods surrounded me; All Your billows and Your waves passed over me. Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight; Yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’ The waters surrounded me, even to my soul; The deep closed around me; Weeds were wrapped around my head. I went down to the moorings of the mountains; The earth with its bars closed behind me forever; Yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God. When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord; And my prayer went up to You, Into Your holy temple” (Jonah 2:1-7).
While Jesus doesn't directly quote Jonah he is making a definite allusion to the prophet's experience. When Jesus says he would be "in the heart of the earth" he is making reference to Jonah who felt himself to be "in the belly of sheol [the grave]" and the "heart of the seas." Was Jonah actually in the grave? Not at all. Rather his prayer is expressing his experience of being cut off from God because of his transgression. He's been abandoned by God and feels as if he is in the heart of the earth/grave/sea itself.
Let's apply this understanding to what Jesus actually said. Rather than three days and three nights in the grave, he says he would be in the heart of the earth. Do we see any parallels between Jesus' experience and that of Jonah? Of course we do. Jonah was cut off from God because of his sin. Jesus was cut off from God because of our sin. Both experienced being separated from God. Remember that Mk 8:31 says that Jesus must suffer many things, be rejected and then be killed then rise again. In my view the three days encompasses the entire passion of Jesus, not just the time he was physically in the grave. Once we realize that Jesus never says he will be three days and three nights in the grave we no longer have a problem harmonizing events.
The way I see it, Jesus began his time in the "heart of the earth" when he began to take on the mantle of the sacrificial lamb. When he ate the passover meal he made a point of tying himself with the emblems they were eating. After this he went to the garden where he became the sin-bearer for all humanity. His time of separation from God began as he approached the garden - traditionally Thursday night.
If the "heart of the earth" is a metaphor for Jesus' experience of separation from God then that time begins even before his death and it doesn't end until he is reunited with the Father. This reunion apparently happens after he meets Mary after the resurrection.
By applying a metaphorical understanding of "heart of the earth" and using Jonah as the back drop (which Jesus hints that we should do) it's quite easy to fit the prophecy in with a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection.
Thursday night - enters the heart of the earth through his suffering - night 1
Friday day - crucified - day 1
Friday night - in the tomb - night 2
Saturday day - in the tomb - day 2
Saturday night - in the tomb/resurrected at some point? - night 3
Sunday day - meets with Mary and disciples prior to ascension - day 3
I'm fairly confident this explanation will please almost no-one. The liberal Bible student will think I'm being silly to try and harmonize things in this way. The traditionalist will immediately reject it because it contradicts pre-concieved notions about what Jesus actually said. But in my view, this is the best way to be faithful to what Jesus actually said, maintain the integrity of the Friday crucifixion and still account for a full three days and three nights. Remember that Jesus was well known for speaking in parables and disguising his true message behind the seemingly obvious.
4. In paradise - In luke 23:43 Jesus makes his famous promise to the thief on the cross that the man would be in paradise. Some of you have mentioned this and tried to come up with creative ways to place Jesus and the thief in paradise on that day while also acknowledging that Jesus was in the grave and not in heaven. No, Jesus wasn't in both places at once. Neither did he promise the thief that he was going to paradise that very day. What we have here is a pagan belief that snuck into the gospel account in the form of a comma. The Greek manuscripts don't contain punctuation, that is added later by translators. Jesus did not say, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" because no matter how you slice it, Jesus wasn't in paradise on either that day or the next. However, Jesus likely did say, "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise." Jesus was simply making him the promise, on the spot, that the thief would be saved. He didn't indicate when that would actually take place. Presumably it will be at the time of the resurrection just like for everyone else. Punctuation is important.
Thank you for an entertaining and enlightening read. And now, because this is a public forum and I know exactly how forums work from many many years of gaming, and in the immortal words of Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four: Flame on!
There are those who maintain that the Gospel of John contradicts the three synoptic Gospels. It does not. The apparent but non-existent contradiction is cleared up once a few things are understood....
I didn't want to waste space quoting Mike's entire post, but I did want to make it clear I am responding to it.
First of all, looking at Exodus 12, we see that Passover is the first day in the Week of Unleavened Bread. This is important because it helps us to synchronize John's and Mathew/Mark/Luke's account.
First, John:
(John 19:14 [ESV2011])
Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
It is important to note that in the account in Exodus, there is no day set aside for getting ready for the Passover. I understand that one might assume such is the case, but there simply isn't one. You might want to draw a congruence between this phrase and the following:
(Luke 23:54 [ESV2011])
It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning....
but there isn't one. Back in Exodus 16, there is a day of preparation clearly implied, for the Israelites were told to gather up two days worth of Manna on the sixth day:
(Exod 16:22 [ESV2011])
On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses,
(Exod 16:23 [ESV2011])
he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’”
So, there IS a day of preparation for the Sabbath but not one for the Passover.
Therefore, the proper rendering of the 'day of Preparation for the Passover' or 'day of Preparation of the Passover' simply means the entire 24 hour period with began, at twilight, on the 14 of Nisan, with the sacrifice of the lamb and the eating of the feast.
Now, onto the Synoptics:
(Matt 26:17 [ESV2011])
Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
(Mark 14:12 [ESV2011])
And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
(Luke 22:7 [ESV2011])
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
(Luke 22:8 [ESV2011])
So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.”
(Luke 22:9 [ESV2011])
They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?”
Taken literally, we might conclude that this is 14 Nisan in the afternoon. In fact context demands that it is 13 Nisan in the afternoon and that, in this case, the meaning of 'the first day of Unleavened Bread' is an idiomatic expression that means the day during which Passover [and hence the Feast of Unleavened Bread] begin. In other words, because a new 'day' begins at twilight instead of at dawn, there is an allowable range of meanings for what exactly a 'day' is.
I think this explanation ties up any loose ends quite nicely.
Chris
In my mind there's no contradiction at all between the Synoptics and John's Gospel.
I didn't want to waste space quoting Mike's entire post, but I did want to make it clear I am responding to it.
First of all, looking at Exodus 12, we see that Passover is the first day in the Week of Unleavened Bread. This is important because it helps us to synchronize John's and Mathew/Mark/Luke's account.
First, John:
(John 19:14 [ESV2011])
Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
It is important to note that in the account in Exodus, there is no day set aside for getting ready for the Passover. I understand that one might assume such is the case, but there simply isn't one. You might want to draw a congruence between this phrase and the following:
(Luke 23:54 [ESV2011])
It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning....
but there isn't one. Back in Exodus 16, there is a day of preparation clearly implied, for the Israelites were told to gather up two days worth of Manna on the sixth day:
(Exod 16:22 [ESV2011])
On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses,
(Exod 16:23 [ESV2011])
he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’”
So, there IS a day of preparation for the Sabbath but not one for the Passover.
Therefore, the proper rendering of the 'day of Preparation for the Passover' or 'day of Preparation of the Passover' simply means the entire 24 hour period with began, at twilight, on the 14 of Nisan, with the sacrifice of the lamb and the eating of the feast.
Now, onto the Synoptics:
(Matt 26:17 [ESV2011])
Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
(Mark 14:12 [ESV2011])
And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
(Luke 22:7 [ESV2011])
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
(Luke 22:8 [ESV2011])
So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.”
(Luke 22:9 [ESV2011])
They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?”
Taken literally, we might conclude that this is 14 Nisan in the afternoon. In fact context demands that it is 13 Nisan in the afternoon and that, in this case, the meaning of 'the first day of Unleavened Bread' is an idiomatic expression that means the day during which Passover [and hence the Feast of Unleavened Bread] begin. In other words, because a new 'day' begins at twilight instead of at dawn, there is an allowable range of meanings for what exactly a 'day' is.
I think this explanation ties up any loose ends quite nicely.
Chris
In my mind there's no contradiction at all between the Synoptics and John's Gospel.
Christ hung on the cross for three hours on Good Friday.
12:00pm - 3:00pm. The 12pm is the "6th hour" from 6am,
which was the reckoning point of the beginning of the new day (sunrise).
He died at 3pm. This is why 3am is the "devil's time". (opposite).
Mike has succeeded in fitting a square peg into a round hole with the Passover issue. I wonder if he can do the same with the differences in the Nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke.
Passover is easier as all 4 gospels agree on that (they don't on the nativity). It is only because the gospels also make it look very much like it wasn't at Passover at all, but during the feast f Tabernacles (indeed John offers a hint that the original story wa set during tabernacles) but the idea of a sacrifice to reforge the Covenant (and this may not even have been what the apostles believed) became so strong in Christian theology that the whole crucifixion business was shifted to Passover as basic Christian doctrine even before the first gospel was written.
An unreasoned answer is not an answer. It is simply an unsubstantiated opinion.
Chris
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the Gospels Agree...
