U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2016, 07:24 PM
 
2,651 posts, read 1,382,549 times
Reputation: 303

Advertisements

You are assuming that day of preparation for Passover was the day before Passover?
The passover meal was prepared during the passover day and eaten Passover night
The day after Passover is always a sabbath
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2016, 07:26 PM
 
2,651 posts, read 1,382,549 times
Reputation: 303
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.

6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 07:28 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,647,071 times
Reputation: 7408
[quote=Aristotle's Child;43417049]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
John and the Synoptics agree that Jesus was crucified on the same day. The apparent discrepancy is just that. Apparent. I did a thread on that subject a few years back.

RESPONSE:

Not according to the writer of John's gospel.

Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. [Pilate] said to the Jews, “Here is your King!” (John 19:14)

Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down.r (John 19:31)

Perhaps, you'll want to correct your thread if it says otherwise.
As I told you, I did a thread on this a few years ago and it addresses that. I have posted that thread and I'm not going to get into it again here. Read the thread.

Also, you keep claiming that John 19:27 states that Mary the mother of Jesus actually went to the house of the disciple that Jesus loved at that very hour. It doesn't say or mean that at all. It simply means that Jesus had placed Mary into the care of the apostle that Jesus loved, and that from that hour on he took care of Mary.

The word 'house' isn't even in John 19:27 in the original Greek. It simply states that the disciple took her to his own (actually, 'to the own.')

Mary did not leave the scene. Mark tells us that after the body of Jesus had been taken down from the cross she and Mary Magdalene were looking on to see where Jesus was laid - Mark 15:47.

Since Mary followed to see where they took the body of Jesus she had not gone to the house of the disciple whom Jesus loved at the same time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,441 times
Reputation: 46
Mike 555 posted:

Paul specifically states in 1 Corinthians 15:8 - ''and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.''

Paul includes himself among those previously mentioned to whom the risen Jesus appeared. The only difference between Jesus' appearance to Paul and His appearance to the others is that Jesus appeared to Paul some three years after His ascension into heaven, while His appearances to the others was before He ascended into heaven. Either way, it is an appearance of the risen Jesus because the appearance was after Jesus was resurrected. Paul therefore was a witness to the risen Jesus as he states.

RESPONSE:

If I have a dream three years after an event that I did not witness, are you seriously claiming that makes me a witness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 07:46 AM
 
780 posts, read 295,881 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
There seems to be only two views on how to address the discrepancies found between the differing gospel accounts.

1. They are actually different events, or they are told from different perspectives. (orthodox/fundamentalist)

2. They prove that the writers were making it all up, getting their facts confused. (skeptic)

Neither of these views really makes sense. Which is why I think the truth is something like this:

3. They are intentional, and the writers were highly educated. Their purpose is to tell the reader that the stories are not factual, in case they were unable to gather that from the clues within the text themselves. There is a deeper meaning that the writer is trying to convey. If the reader is not smart enough to catch the clues, then perhaps the differences will get his attention.

What do you think of this third view?
The lead post assumes the accounts written in the gospels were either untrue or deliberate attempts at deception. It also assumes there are only two methods of examining the accounts. It also assumes it was all a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth, assuming the writer seeks it - which is apparently not the case here.

Any trial lawyer as well as anyone who has served on jury duty (myself included) will tell you that any given event will have slightly different perspectives and testimonies of the witnesses.

Slight differences in testimony do not imply deviation, discrepancy or willful intent to deceive. In fact, slight differences in perspective testimony proves an event rather than disproves it.

Different eyes see an event from different points of view. This is a matter of testimonial fact. It is accepted in every court in every land except those who are predisposed to a predetermined agenda - not truth.

The lead post only addresses the testimony of scripture. There are a number of accounts of the life, miraculous ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in secular history as well. In fact, there is more information about Jesus Christ in the secular record than that of Julius Caesar (a Roman general and emperor).

Two thousand years ago, something very unusual happened in the Roman province of Judea. A man came preaching the Kingdom of God. He gave hope to the oppressed, healed the sick, raised the dead and when He was publicly executed rose again from the grave. These are matters of historic fact recorded by those who were there or who heard the rumor of it from a distance.

There were men in Jesus' day who chose to lie about the agenda of the Son of God and who dedicated themselves to every imaginable way to discredit Him and His deeds. They were unsuccessful and they died in their sins.

There were men in Jesus' day, as there are today, who chose to pay close attention to the Son of God and to believe Him. Their lives were and are enriched immeasurably in ways unimaginable.

It remains for the reader to decide. Choose wisely because no one will benefit or suffer more from your decision than you.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 07:49 AM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,647,071 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
Mike 555 posted:

Paul specifically states in 1 Corinthians 15:8 - ''and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.''

Paul includes himself among those previously mentioned to whom the risen Jesus appeared. The only difference between Jesus' appearance to Paul and His appearance to the others is that Jesus appeared to Paul some three years after His ascension into heaven, while His appearances to the others was before He ascended into heaven. Either way, it is an appearance of the risen Jesus because the appearance was after Jesus was resurrected. Paul therefore was a witness to the risen Jesus as he states.

RESPONSE:

If I have a dream three years after an event that I did not witness, are you seriously claiming that makes me a witness?
Paul didn't have a dream. He had an encounter with the risen Jesus which was in a sense manifested to the men who were with Paul, in that everyone with Paul saw a light and heard a voice which they could not understand. Only to Paul did Jesus make His presence clear.

As well, there was another man, by the name of Ananias, to whom God spoke and commanded him to go meet with Paul because Paul was a chosen instrument of His (Acts 9:10-19).

A internally generated dream is not experienced by others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,587 posts, read 5,115,237 times
Reputation: 3916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Paul didn't have a dream. He had an encounter with the risen Jesus which was in a sense manifested to the men who were with Paul, in that everyone with Paul saw a light and heard a voice which they could not understand. Only to Paul did Jesus make His presence clear.

As well, there was another man, by the name of Ananias, to whom God spoke and commanded him to go meet with Paul because Paul was a chosen instrument of His (Acts 9:10-19).

A internally generated dream is not experienced by others.
That isn't quite the complete story. There are contradictions in the accounts as reported by Acts:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. (Luke reporting)
------

— Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)

My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. (Paul speaking)

— Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)

There is little doubt something profound happened, but the devil remains in the details. Luke apparently wasn't aware that he miswrote either with the first or second account. Given that writing on parchment may have taken days to write a one or two of our chapter divisionsor, it isn't surprising that a detail is incorrect one way or another.

It's a discrepancy in Acts, but it gives legitimacy to the human messenger writing it.

Only lawyers resort to arguing that the details condemn the entire account, and only inerrantists waste their time trying to reconcile the humanity in the writer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,441 times
Reputation: 46
[quote=Mike555;43417271]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post

As I told you, I did a thread on this a few years ago and it addresses that. I have posted that thread and I'm not going to get into it again here. Read the thread.

Also, you keep claiming that John 19:27 states that Mary the mother of Jesus actually went to the house of the disciple that Jesus loved at that very hour. It doesn't say or mean that at all. It simply means that Jesus had placed Mary into the care of the apostle that Jesus loved, and that from that hour on he took care of Mary.

The word 'house' isn't even in John 19:27 in the original Greek. It simply states that the disciple took her to his own (actually, 'to the own.')

Mary did not leave the scene. Mark tells us that after the body of Jesus had been taken down from the cross she and Mary Magdalene were looking on to see where Jesus was laid - Mark 15:47.

Since Mary followed to see where they took the body of Jesus she had not gone to the house of the disciple whom Jesus loved at the same time.
RESPONSES:

Mike posted:
Quote:
As I told you, I did a thread on this a few years ago and it addresses that. I have posted that thread and I'm not going to get into it again here. Read the thread.
RESPONSE: Do you really expect me to review all your threads for the last “few years”? Your response here is not an answer. The fact that you can’t produce it, makes it impossible to verity.

Quote:
Also, you keep claiming that John 19:27 states that Mary the mother of Jesus actually went to the house of the disciple that Jesus loved at that very hour. It doesn't say or mean that at all. It simply means that Jesus had placed Mary into the care of the apostle that Jesus loved, and that from that hour on he took care of Mary.
RESPONSE: Passage reads John 19.27 “Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.” (NRSV) I go by the plain meaning of words.

Quote:
The word 'house' isn't even in John 19:27 in the original Greek. It simply states that the disciple took her to his own (actually, 'to the own.')
RESPONSE: No. Not “(actually, 'to the own.')”

(New Revised Standard Version) John 19.27 “Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.”
Online Greek Interlinear Bible

"Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. "
idia idia G2398 a_ Acc Pl Strongs Lexicon G2398 “pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self”

Quote:
Mary did not leave the scene. Mark tells us that after the body of Jesus had been taken down from the cross she and Mary Magdalene were looking on to see where Jesus was laid - Mark 15:47.
Quote:
Since Mary followed to see where they took the body of Jesus she had not gone to the house of the disciple whom Jesus loved at the same time.
.

RESPONSE: No. You have the wrong Mary. Mark 15:47 “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses watched where he was laid.” Please read and quote all the words

Note: You quote Mark extensively. I assume you know that the writer of the gospel we call "Mark" was a Syrian Christian who was not an eyewitness to the events he describes and wrote at least 40 years after the fact. Still his gospel is the primary souce of Matthew's and Luke's gospels written 50 years after the events described and they were also non-witneses.

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 03-20-2016 at 02:15 PM.. Reason: addition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,441 times
Reputation: 46
[quote=Choir Loft;43420709]The lead post assumes the accounts written in the gospels were either untrue or deliberate attempts at deception. It also assumes there are only two methods of examining the accounts. It also assumes it was all a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth, assuming the writer seeks it - which is apparently not the case here.

Any trial lawyer as well as anyone who has served on jury duty (myself included) will tell you that any given event will have slightly different perspectives and testimonies of the witnesses.

Slight differences in testimony do not imply deviation, discrepancy or willful intent to deceive. In fact, slight differences in perspective testimony proves an event rather than disproves it.

Different eyes see an event from different points of view. This is a matter of testimonial fact. It is accepted in every court in every land except those who are predisposed to a predetermined agenda - not truth.

RESPONSE: Testimony in trials is not supposed to be directly inspired by God (or "God breathed)' Is it? That's the difference.


It remains for the reader to decide. Choose wisely because no one will benefit or suffer more from your decision than you.

RESPONSE: It reamins for the intellectually honest and objective reader to carefully read the texts and judge by the meaning of words and not a previsouly conceived belief system.


"and that's me, hollering from the choir loft"

RESPONSE: Perhaps your time would be better spent investigating the facts.

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 03-20-2016 at 02:22 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2016, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,441 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
That isn't quite the complete story. There are contradictions in the accounts as reported by Acts:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. (Luke reporting)
------

— Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)

My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. (Paul speaking)

— Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)

There is little doubt something profound happened, but the devil remains in the details. Luke apparently wasn't aware that he miswrote either with the first or second account. Given that writing on parchment may have taken days to write a one or two of our chapter divisionsor, it isn't surprising that a detail is incorrect one way or another.

It's a discrepancy in Acts, but it gives legitimacy to the human messenger writing it.

Only lawyers resort to arguing that the details condemn the entire account, and only inerrantists waste their time trying to reconcile the humanity in the writer.
RESPONSE:

Have you noticed that nowhere in his Epistles does Paul refer to his alleged Damascus Road experience three version of which Luke tells us about 25 years after the death of Paul.

What would that lead you to believe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top