Paul and Jesus

[smokydot]

I don't know the OT? What is this statement based off of? And there was a Day of Preparation for the Passover, and John says that is when Jesus was crucified. Immediately preceding Jesus being crucified, Pilate is laying down the verdict. We are told specifically when this is: John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
So instead of telling me to do my homework, you may actually want to pick up a Bible, or do any research at all.
Look above. John 19:14 is all you have to look at to see that you're wrong. I am not ignoring what John stated, and I'm taking him in context. John 19 is about the verdict and later the crucifixion, which we are told happened on the Day of Preparation of the Passover, which is the day before the Passover. The day in which the Passover meal was prepared, when the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered.

See post #33, my first reponse, where I explain the eight-day double feast, sometimes referred to in the NT as Passover,
and sometimes referred to in the NT as Unleavened Bread.
Then read the text of Jn 19:14. What does it say exactly?

Days of Preparation were for Sabbaths only. This Day of Preparation was for a special Sabbath,
which was the beginning of the annual seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.
If you still don't understand why it does not refer to Thursday, I'll explain further.

Logically, if it was important, it should be mentioned. If not, and we see that another Gospel is saying something else happened, then there is a problem. It is only logical

It is only logical if you are correct, which you are not.

I can read the Gospel, that is it. Matthew 2, speak of Herod asking where Jesus was born. The Magi say Bethlehem. Herod send the magi to Bethlehem,

And you assume they went there. The text does not say they did, and other facts show they did not. . . that they followed the star, to their house,
which would be Nazareth, that Jesus was not born in a house in Bethlehem, "he was laid in a manger" at birth.
Your supposed "contradictions" are caused by your misunderstanding.

where the magi find Jesus in a house. The implication here is that it is the house of Mary and Joseph, and we have already been told that it was in Bethlehem. There is no suggestion at all that the magi went to Nazareth.

There home was not in Bethlehem, it was in Nazareth.

Later, we are told Herod dies, and that they are going to return to Israel. Where does Joseph first pick? Not Galilee but Judah, as in where Bethlehem was. Instead, we are told that they changed their mind and decided to live in Nazareth. The wording gives the implication that it was a relocation instead of going back home.

Mary lived in Nazareth when the Angel Gabriel foretold her of the birth of Jesus. They went back home to Nazareth when they returned from Egypt.

Seriously? Does Matthew 2:7-8 specifically state the Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem? Yes it does. That is where they find Jesus. There is no other suggestion.

Except for that statement that the Magi followed the star. It doesn't say they went to Bethlehem, it says they followed the star and came to the house.
They didn't follow Herod's instructions to return to him, but went home another way, just as they didn't followed Herod's instructions to go to Bethlehem when the star appeared again to lead them.

Show me where it says that one of the genealogies are of Mary?

Joseph didn't descend from two different sons of King David.

Then explain why they would even do that?

To establish the blood line of Jesus from King David. That you don't know its significance indicates your limited understanding of the OT.

And then explain why both genealogies state specifically that they are going through Joseph? You have quite a bit of work to do.

They don't.
The meaning in is: "Jesus (thought to be the son of Joseph) was the (grand)son of Heli."

There is no rule. However, one account can't have Jesus being swept off to Egypt and the other one having him go home. That is called a contradiction.

And they don't contradict, except in your misunderstanding. They fled Nazareth to go to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth.

Maybe you want to do a little research on that. Maybe more specifically on other so called messiahs and religious leaders who were killed for similar acts. And yes, causing such a commotion in the temple would not have been allowed. The reason is simple, because it could cause a revolt. Jerusalem was already a tinderbox. All you have to do is a little research.

I will go with the NT eye-witness report on that incident, rather than some counterfeit reconstruction of it nearly 2,000 years after the fact.

Yet, I've shown that you are mistaken quite a few times.

You've got that backwards.

You seem to have done little research on the subject. Maybe instead of making cheap shots at me though, you could actually provide evidence or logic for any of your claims.

Provided above. . .and read the texts more carefully.

And what were those problems with the nativity which you mentioned?

 

[fallingblood]

See post #33, my first reponse, where I explain the eight-day double feast, sometimes referred to in the NT as Passover,
and sometimes referred to in the NT as Unleavened Bread.
Then read the text of Jn 19:14. What does it say exactly?

Days of Preparation were for Sabbaths only. This Day of Preparation was for a special Sabbath,
which was the beginning of the annual seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.
If you still don't understand why it does not refer to Thursday, I'll explain further.

I've quoted John for you to see. I've explained what the day entailed. Until you can show why Scripture is wrong, and why Jewish practice is wrong, then I may want you to explain. But until then, maybe you should deal with the issue at hand. You can pretend it says something different, but it won't make it so.

It is only logical if you are correct, which you are not.

Please show me why. Otherwise, you're just wasting time and space.

And you assume they went there. The text does not say they did, and other facts show they did not. . . that they followed the star, to their house,
which would be Nazareth, that Jesus was not born in a house in Bethlehem, "he was laid in a manger" at birth.
Your supposed "contradictions" are caused by your misunderstanding.

If you can't follow what Matthew is saying, that's not my problem. The only way it works how you want is if you pick and choose what out of the birth narratives you want, and then make a new one that agrees with neither Gospel. Now, it's your prerogative if you want to create a new Gospel, but it simply will not lead you any credibility.

But please, if you can, show me in Matthew where it is said Jesus was born in a manger or was visited by Magi in Nazareth. You can't, because it doesn't happen in Matthew.

There home was not in Bethlehem, it was in Nazareth.

Ignoring what I say is not an argument. You can continue stating whatever you want, but it means nothing until you can show why I'm wrong, and you're right. I've explained how Matthew assumed there home was in Bethlehem. You haven't shown any reason not to believe that.

Mary lived in Nazareth when the Angel Gabriel foretold her of the birth of Jesus. They went back home to Nazareth when they returned from Egypt.

You're combining two separate stories, which neither say that. Luke only says it was in Nazareth when the Angel Gabriel foretold the birth of Jesus. In Matthew, the implication is that it was in Bethlehem, as I've already explained.

Luke doesn't mention anything about Egypt, and I've already explained why Matthew has Joseph and his family relocate and find a new home, away from their previous one in Bethlehem.

Except for that statement that the Magi followed the star. It doesn't say they went to Bethlehem, it says they followed the star and came to the house.
They didn't follow Herod's instructions to return to him, but went home another way, just as they didn't followed Herod's instructions to go to Bethlehem when the star appeared again to lead them.

You are simply making that up now. The Gospels don't state that. If you read Matthew carefully, it says Joseph, after finding Mary with child, and being reassured it was okay, took her home. Right after, Mary has a child in Bethlehem. There is no suggestion of travel at all. The implication is that there home was in Bethlehem, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Now, this is when we are told that a star arose to signal his birth. Since he was born in Bethlehem, it is only logical that the star was over Bethlehem. Meaning, that is where the Magi went. It isn't difficult to understand, unless you want to make up things, as you have been doing.

Joseph didn't descend from two different sons of King David.

That doesn't answer the question.

To establish the blood line of Jesus from King David. That you don't know its significance indicates your limited understanding of the OT.

Another ignorant wise crack. Maybe you want to show what you're saying instead of making childish attacks.

Also, maybe you want to learn something about Jewish practices. A genealogy through Mary establishes nothing accept that he is a Jew. The line had to go through the father. And it wasn't necessary that it was an actual blood line. It only matters when speaking of Paul. And Paul states that it was a descent according to the flesh. It only works then through the father. If you had any background in Judaism, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

They don't.
The meaning in is: "Jesus (thought to be the son of Joseph) was the (grand)son of Heli."

Only if you pretend it does. It doesn't state that, and as Oberon pointed out to you, the Greek doesn't state that either. The English doesn't even assume that.

And they don't contradict, except in your misunderstanding. They fled Nazareth to go to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth.

Accept the Gospels don't state that. And it doesn't explain why Joseph was going to return to Judea, as in where Bethlehem is.

I will go with the NT eye-witness report on that incident, rather than some counterfeit reconstruction of it nearly 2,000 years after the fact.

So you are going to just dismiss Josephus then? I guess when the evidence points otherwise, it is best to just ignore it. That's the only way your argument works.

You've got that backwards.

Care to explain.

Provided above. . .and read the texts more carefully.

And what were those problems with the nativity which you mentioned?

You're telling me to read the texts more carefully when you're the one who is just making up stuff? Please. Try a little at least.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're telling me to read the texts more carefully when you're the one who is just making up stuff? Please. Try a little at least.

Smokydot thinks that he's not interpreting Scripture -- his view basically is Scripture.

So if you don't come to his conclusions, you obviously have a reading problem/

 

[smokydot]

I've quoted John for you to see. I've explained what the day entailed. Until you can show why Scripture is wrong, and why Jewish practice is wrong, then I may want you to explain. But until then, maybe you should deal with the issue at hand. You can pretend it says something different, but it won't make it so.
Please show me why. Otherwise, you're just wasting time and space.

It is not the Scriputre that is wrong.

Let's quote exactly Jn 19:14--"It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week."
But Passover was not a week, it was one day.

As explained in post #33, since the Feast of Unleavened Bread began the day after Passover (Saturday Sabbath), it was sometimes called the Passover, as in:
Lk 22:1 -- "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching."
Jn 18:28 -- "Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiphas to the place of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning (Friday), and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover (referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, per Lk 22:1, beginning the next day).

And at other times the Passover was simply called Unleavened Bread, as in:
Mt 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?' "
But the Passover is not part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it has simply been grouped with it.
Mk 14:12 -- "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb. . ."
But again, the Passover was not part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it has simply been grouped with it.

Therefore, because Passover was not a week, and was sometimes included with the Feast of Unleavened Bread which was a week, John uses the common nomenclature
to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread when he says "the Day of Preparation of Passover Week." That would have been Friday, the day before the special Sabbath,
the Day of Preparation for the Special Sabbath,
the day of Passover, and
the day Jesus was crucified.
Jesus both participated in the Passover (Thursday evening) and fulfilled the Passover (Friday), thus making another Levitical law obsolete.

Continued in post #46.

 

[fallingblood]

It is not the Scriputre that is wrong.

Let's quote exactly Jn 19:14--"It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week."
But Passover was not a week, it was one day.

As explained in post #33, since the Feast of Unleavened Bread began the day after Passover (Saturday Sabbath), it was sometimes called the Passover, as in:
Lk 22:1 -- "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching."
Jn 18:28 -- "Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiphas to the place of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning (Friday), and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover (referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, per Lk 22:1, beginning the next day).

And at other times the Passover was simply called Unleavened Bread, as in:
Mt 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?' "
But the Passover is not part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it has simply been grouped with it.
Mk 14:12 -- "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb. . ."
But again, the Passover was not part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it has simply been grouped with it.

Therefore, because Passover was not a week, and was sometimes included with the Feast of Unleavened Bread which was a week, John uses the common nomenclature
to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread when he says "the Day of Preparation of Passover Week." That would have been Friday, the day before the special Sabbath,
the Day of Preparation for the Special Sabbath,
the day of Passover, and
the day Jesus was crucified.
Jesus both participated in the Passover (Thursday evening) and fulfilled the Passover (Friday), thus making another Levitical law obsolete.

Where does it say in John that Jesus participated in the Passover? It doesn't. Also, it doesn't make the Levitical law obsolete. I've already explained that.

Also, what translation are you using?

More so, the phrase is paraskeue tou pascha (John 19:14, Day of Preparation for Passover). It reflects the day before Passover. Even the term, the Day of Preparation for Passover week symbolizes the same idea. It doesn't signify a day before the Special Sabbath. It symbolizes the day before Passover, as I've explained just above.

More so, for John, it can't be Passover day anyway. John 18:28 states: "And they themselves (the Jewish authorities) did not enter the praetorium, lest they be rendered unclean; rather [they remained outside and remained legally clean] so that they might eat the Passover."

So we see that when Jesus, according to John, is being taken to the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, it was not yet Passover. This is right before the trial before Pilate, on the same day in which we are told that Jesus was crucified. Your explanation simply doesn't work when we look at what John is saying. And running around in circles, making things up that simply don't appear in John, will not work.

 

[smokydot]

Continuation of post #44.

If you can't follow what Matthew is saying, that's not my problem. The only way it works how you want is if you pick and choose what out of the birth narratives you want, and then make a new one that agrees with neither Gospel. Now, it's your prerogative if you want to create a new Gospel, but it simply will not lead you any credibility.

Let me begin by noting that these are not two separate stories, these are two separate accounts of the same event.

I will not be pitting one Biblical account against another to confound the Scriptures.
I will be including both Biblical accounts of the one event to get a more complete picture of that one event.

But please, if you can, show me in Matthew where it is said Jesus was born in a manger or was visited by Magi in Nazareth. You can't, because it doesn't happen in Matthew.

I will not pit one Biblical account against another of the same event.

The whole counsel of God on this point is: "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger. . ." (Lk 1:7)

Ignoring what I say is not an argument. You can continue stating whatever you want, but it means nothing until you can show why I'm wrong, and you're right. I've explained how Matthew assumed there home was in Bethlehem. You haven't shown any reason not to believe that.
You're combining two separate stories, which neither say that. Luke only says it was in Nazareth when the Angel Gabriel foretold the birth of Jesus. In Matthew, the implication is that it was in Bethlehem, as I've already explained.

I've shown the very reason to believe that, which for your sake I will repeat.
Nor are they two separate stories, rather they are two separate accounts of the same event.
Therefore, I will not set one Biblical account against another to confound the Scriptures.

The whole counsel of God on this point is: "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of God, they returned to Galilee to their home in Nazareth." (Lk 2:39)
Home was not Bethlehem, home was Nazareth

Luke doesn't mention anything about Egypt, and I've already explained why Matthew has Joseph and his family relocate and find a new home, away from their previous one in Bethlehem.

And yet, both are accounts of the same event, the first few months of Jesus' life.

The whole counsel of God shows their home was not in Bethlehem.

You are simply making that up now. The Gospels don't state that. If you read Matthew carefully, it says Joseph, after finding Mary with child, and being reassured it was okay, took her home. Right after, Mary has a child in Bethlehem. There is no suggestion of travel at all. The implication is that there home was in Bethlehem, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

There is much reason to think otherwise.

The whole counsel of God on this point is: "So Joseph went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child." (Lk 2:4-5)

Now, this is when we are told that a star arose to signal his birth. Since he was born in Bethlehem, it is only logical that the star was over Bethlehem. Meaning, that is where the Magi went. It isn't difficult to understand, unless you want to make up things, as you have been doing.

The Magi went to see Herod, and unless Herod ruled from the little town of Bethlehem, it was not the first stop of the Magi.

That doesn't answer the question.
Another ignorant wise crack. Maybe you want to show what you're saying instead of making childish attacks.

Are you saying you don't know why establishing the blood line of Jesus the Christ back to King David was important?

Also, maybe you want to learn something about Jewish practices. A genealogy through Mary establishes nothing accept that he is a Jew. The line had to go through the father. And it wasn't necessary that it was an actual blood line.

Luke completely shut out any argument, past and present, that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not of the blood line of David.
Mary's genealogy shows Jesus' blood line back to King David, through David's son, Nathan, and
Joseph's genealogy shows his royal line back to King David, through David's son, King Solomon.

We're talking more than ordinary lineage here, we're talking exact and undeniable fulfillment of prophecy for his authentication.

It only matters when speaking of Paul. And Paul states that it was a descent according to the flesh. It only works then through the father. If you had any background in Judaism, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

You've got it backwards. . .again.

Only if you pretend it does. It doesn't state that, and as Oberon pointed out to you, the Greek doesn't state that either. The English doesn't even assume that.

It's probably time to remind you that the truth of the NT cannot be proven.
It is a matter of faith.
I believe it. . .evidently you don't. . .and seek to justify that unbelief by pitting one Scripture against another.
So having presented the testimony of NT, I do not defend its truth, for that is a matter of faith, not proof.

Accept the Gospels don't state that. And it doesn't explain why Joseph was going to return to Judea, as in where Bethlehem is.

How about return to Judea, as in where Jerusalem was, which would have been a good location for the Messiah.

So you are going to just dismiss Josephus then? I guess when the evidence points otherwise, it is best to just ignore it. That's the only way your argument works.

I have the Word of God written, more sure than the tesitmony of Josephus.

Care to explain.

It's the same as my ninth response in this post.

You're telling me to read the texts more carefully when you're the one who is just making up stuff? Please. Try a little at least.

 

[smokydot]

Where does it say in John that Jesus participated in the Passover? It doesn't.

And where does it say in John that Jesus did not participate in the Passover? It doesn't. But that doesn't mean he did not participate in the Passover,
then fulfill the Passover the next day when he was sacrificed as the Lamb of God, whose shed blood saves from eternal death,
just as the blood smeared on the doorposts the night of the first Passover saved from the angel of physical death.

For his participation in Passover, see Mt 26:17-20; Mk 14:12-17; Lk 22:7-14.

Also, it doesn't make the Levitical law obsolete. I've already explained that.

The NT Word of God written says it does.

Also, what translation are you using?

That comes from the NIV, whose scholars' understanding of the Scriptures, according to the Scriptures, is most accurate. See next response.

More so, the phrase is paraskeue tou pascha (John 19:14, Day of Preparation for Passover). It reflects the day before Passover. Even the term, the Day of Preparation for Passover week symbolizes the same idea. It doesn't signify a day before the Special Sabbath. It symbolizes the day before Passover, as I've explained just above.

Where in the OT do you find Day of Preparation for anything other than a Sabbath?

Correct interpretation of Scripture requires that it be done in light of the other Scriptures.
In light of other Scriptures bearing on this, your understanding of the meaning of Day of Preparation is completely wrong. For example:

Mt 27:62-63 -- "The next day, the day after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' "
Since Saturday was the only day there was for the chief priests and Pharisees to go to Pilate, that makes Saturday the day after Preparation Day, which makes Preparation day a Friday, the day Jesus was crucified, which was also Passover.
Jesus both participated in and fulfilled the OT Passover, thereby making it obsolete according to the testimony of the NT.

Mk 15:42-43 -- "It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Aremethea. . .went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body."
That makes Preparation Day a Friday, the day before the Sabbath, and the day Jesus was crucified.

Lk 23:54 -- "It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin."
That makes Preparation Day before the Sabbath, a Friday, the day Jesus was crucified.

Jn 19:31 -- "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath." (i.e., the first day of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread)
Preparation Day had to be on a Friday for the next day to be a Sabbath, making Jesus crucified on a Friday.
And in the Greek, "special Sabbath" reads "for great was the day of that Sabbath," your handling of the Greek notwithstanding.

When you add to these the previous Scriptures in post #44, where I showed the nomenclature commonly used regarding Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread,
then the Biblical testimony that Preparation Day was Friday, the day Jesus died and the day of Passover, is overwhelming. . .notwithstanding your attempts to disprove it
by setting one Scripture against another to confound the whole counsel of God, which indisputably shows you to be completely wrong.

More so, for John, it can't be Passover day anyway. John 18:28 states: "And they themselves (the Jewish authorities) did not enter the praetorium, lest they be rendered unclean; rather [they remained outside and remained legally clean] so that they might eat the Passover."
So we see that when Jesus, according to John, is being taken to the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, it was not yet Passover.

I have previously and thorougly addressed this with NT Scriptures, and done so again, above.
Refute these Scriptures.

This is right before the trial before Pilate, on the same day in which we are told that Jesus was crucified. Your explanation simply doesn't work when we look at what John is saying. And running around in circles, making things up that simply don't appear in John, will not work.

Now what were those differences you see in the nativity stories? Or is that what we've been discussing?

 

[Ben Masada]

If Paul was around when Jesus was, this would not have allowed him to use him to implement his - Paul's - policy of Replacement Theology.
Ben

 

[fallingblood]

Continuation of post #44.
Let me begin by noting that these are not two separate stories, these are two separate accounts of the same event.

That's a cop out.

The whole counsel of God on this point is: "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger. . ." (Lk 1:7)

Incorrect. Luke only states this. Matthew suggest Joseph took Mary home to Bethlehem and there she had the child, in a home. I've explained this already, and you haven't shown any reason to not believe it.

The whole counsel of God on this point is: "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of God, they returned to Galilee to their home in Nazareth." (Lk 2:39)
Home was not Bethlehem, home was Nazareth

According to Luke, his home was in Nazareth. Matthew doesn't state that and implies it was in Bethlehem. The whole counsel of God is not what you say on this point then. I've already explained my position, which you haven't provided a reasonable rebuttal to.

And yet, both are accounts of the same event, the first few months of Jesus' life.

Exactly, and they both are very different. To the point that they can not be reconciled logically. Sure, you can use faith, but that is hardly proof, and it is blind.

There is much reason to think otherwise.

Only if you close your eyes and pretend. Not to mention the reason Luke has Joseph go to Bethlehem is a bunch of bunk. There was no census until around 6 C.E. And it didn't include Galilee because it wasn't under direct Roman rule. More so, there is no reason why Joseph would have to return the town of David, from who he was separated by an extremely long time period. There in Roman records, or anywhere for that matter, that would suggest that was the process. Especially since it would have been ridiculous.

The Magi went to see Herod, and unless Herod ruled from the little town of Bethlehem, it was not the first stop of the Magi.

I've explained why the Magi went to Bethlehem. That is where Jesus was born, that is where the star was said to appear, that is where King Herod sent them. There is no evidence what so ever that the Magi went to Nazareth. No one ever says that.

Are you saying you don't know why establishing the blood line of Jesus the Christ back to King David was important?

A physical blood line was not important. There was no need for Jesus to genetically be related to King David. That is what I'm saying. The fact that Joseph was his legal father was all that was needed. And really, that was all that mattered. Because if the argument was that Jesus was related to King David through Mary, it would be scoffed at because that was not how they did things. It went through the fathers line, and only the fathers line.

Luke completely shut out any argument, past and present, that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not of the blood line of David.
Mary's genealogy shows Jesus' blood line back to King David, through David's son, Nathan, and
Joseph's genealogy shows his royal line back to King David, through David's son, King Solomon.

We're talking more than ordinary lineage here, we're talking exact and undeniable fulfillment of prophecy for his authentication.

No, we are talking about you not having any idea of Jewish tradition. It didn't completely shut off any argument because going through the mother proved nothing. That is why it is illogical to assume that the genealogy is through Mary, because it would be pointless.

It's probably time to remind you that the truth of the NT cannot be proven.
It is a matter of faith.
I believe it. . .evidently you don't. . .and seek to justify that unbelief by pitting one Scripture against another.

However, one can use logic, research, and just a little knowledge to show that the NT does have problems, as well as what it means. You can ignore this, but then there is no reason to debate. No one is going to except that the reasoning that since you have faith, it's true.


I have no problem with you having faith that the NT is infallible. However, it is not a logical conclusion, and will not win any arguments because it flies in the face of reason, and what we know about history. You can have faith, but don't expect to win any arguments with it.

 

[fallingblood]

And where does it say in John that Jesus did not participate in the Passover? It doesn't. But that doesn't mean he did not participate in the Passover,
then fulfill the Passover the next day when he was sacrificed as the Lamb of God, whose shed blood saves from eternal death,
just as the blood smeared on the doorposts the night of the first Passover saved from the angel of physical death.

Did you read my previous post? I show where it states that Jesus could not have possibly celebrated the Passover. Here it is again: More so, for John, it can't be Passover day anyway. John 18:28 states: "And they themselves (the Jewish authorities) did not enter the praetorium, lest they be rendered unclean; rather [they remained outside and remained legally clean] so that they might eat the Passover."

So we see that when Jesus, according to John, is being taken to the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, it was not yet Passover. This is right before the trial before Pilate, on the same day in which we are told that Jesus was crucified. Your explanation simply doesn't work when we look at what John is saying. And running around in circles, making things up that simply don't appear in John, will not work.

For his participation in Passover, see Mt 26:17-20; Mk 14:12-17; Lk 22:7-14.

Not John. Fail.

The NT Word of God written says it does.

Nope. But hey, maybe you want to show me where.

That comes from the NIV, whose scholars' understanding of the Scriptures, according to the Scriptures, is most accurate. See next response.

Um, no.

Where in the OT do you find Day of Preparation for anything other than a Sabbath?

You are aware that the Jews had more than just the Old Testament don't you? Just because you have no knowledge of Judaism doesn't make you right.

Refute these Scriptures.

I've explained why you are wrong with John. If you can't argue against it, that's fine.

Now what were those differences you see in the nativity storie?

Have I not stated that before? You haven't shown any of the differences wrong. All you've been able to do is rewrite scripture to fit your narrow view.

 

[fallingblood]

Jn 19:31 -- "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath." (i.e., the first day of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread)
Preparation Day had to be on a Friday for the next day to be a Sabbath, making Jesus crucified on a Friday.
And in the Greek, "special Sabbath" reads "for great was the day of that Sabbath," your handling of the Greek notwithstanding.

I want to address just this. First, this is after 19:14, which specifically states that it was the Day of Preparation of Passover. I've explained the Greek there, as well as the phrase.

Now, what you need to know is that Saturday is the Sabbath. Why was this Sabbath special? Do you have any reason for that? Well here is a little background. Special Sabbaths are Sabbaths which precede or coincide with Jewish festivals. It does not specifically state what you are saying. It could be special as it fell on Passover that year. That is actually more likely than it falling on the Day of Preparation (which is actually rare).

Your argument fails as you made a baseless assumption and are basically making up what fits your position.

 

[waitasec]

smokeydot,
i had a flip around trying to figure this out myself when i read this
for me it was wrapping my head around the fact that passover is on the 15th
sabbath starts on the friday night, when it gets dark. and since these 2 events were in the same week it gets confusing. but in the NIV you will see that they differentiate the 2 days. the day of preparation for the sabbath (mark 15:42) and the day of preparation for passover (john 9:14)

mark 15:42 is the day of preparation for the sabbath, not passover.

in mark jesus eats the passover meal (thursday night) and crucified on friday morning.
mark 14:12 On the first day of the Festival 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?
Mark 14:22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.

in john jesus does not eat the passover meal but is crucified on the day before the passover meal was to be eaten
in john jesus dies a day earlier on the day of preparation for the passover
in mark jesus is crucified at 9 in the morning day of preparation the day before the sabbath the morning after the passover meal(mk 15:25, 42)
in john he is sentenced at 12 noon (jn 9:14)

and then we can get into when the curtain ripped in half
was if before jesus died or after?

 

[outhouse]

in john jesus does not eat the passover meal but is crucified on the day before the passover meal was to be eaten
in john jesus dies a day earlier on the day of preparation for the passover
in mark jesus is crucified at 9 in the morning day of preparation the day before the sabbath the morning after the passover meal(mk 15:25, 42)
in john he is sentenced at 12 noon (jn 9:14)

off topic, but thats because both author's never knew when jesus died, and both claim the event as nonfiction.

mark would be more reliable if the crucifiction is true and not all fiction

 

[fallingblood]

off topic, but thats because both author's never knew when jesus died, and both claim the event as nonfiction.

mark would be more reliable if the crucifiction is true and not all fiction

The crucifixion is one thing we can be sure about with Jesus. The reason being that it first was embarrassing. Paul calls it a stumbling block for Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). More so, as Paul also states: Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." Paul was referring to Deuteronomy 21:23.

There is no reason for such a story to be made up.

As for whether or not Mark is more reliable, it is debatable. Meier, in A Marginal Jews, argues that John is possibly more accurate. One of his arguments is that Paul calls Jesus our Paschal Lamb: 1 Corinthians 5:7

 

[outhouse]

interesting, thank you

 

[smokydot]

I want to address just this.

And why are you not addresssing all the NT Scriptures in that post #47, which show your grave error regarding the Day of Preparation being Thursday, instead of Friday,
as all those NT Scriptures clearly show?

First, this is after 19:14, which specifically states that it was the Day of Preparation of Passover. I've explained the Greek there, as well as the phrase.
Now, what you need to know is that Saturday is the Sabbath. Why was this Sabbath special? Do you have any reason for that?

Yes, and I gave it twice. That Sabbath was the beginning of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, one of the three feasts for which all males were required to attend at Jerusalem.

It does not specifically state what you are saying.

It doesn't need to state it. It was a fixed date on the Jewish calendar--the day after Passover.
I gave Scriptures from all four gospels in post #47 showing exactly when it was, which was the day after Passover.
Why are you not addressing them?

It could be special as it fell on Passover that year. That is actually more likely than it falling on the Day of Preparation (which is actually rare).

The Feast of Unleavened Bread cannot fall on Passover, because it is a fixed date, which begins the day after Passover.

Your argument fails as you made a baseless assumption and are basically making up what fits your position.

You haven't shown that it does.

 

[smokydot]

If Paul was around when Jesus was, this would not have allowed him to use him to implement his - Paul's - policy of Replacement Theology.
Ben

Paul was Jesus' enemy when Jesus was around.
That didn't change until after Jesus was murdered.

 

[smokydot]

That's a cop out.

True exegesis is in the light and context of the other Scriptures.
You practice counterfeit exegesis by trying to set the Scriptures against itself.

Incorrect. Luke only states this. Matthew suggest Joseph took Mary home to Bethlehem and there she had the child, in a home. I've explained this already, and you haven't shown any reason to not believe it.
According to Luke, his home was in Nazareth. Matthew doesn't state that and implies it was in Bethlehem. The whole counsel of God is not what you say on this point then. I've already explained my position, which you haven't provided a reasonable rebuttal to.
Exactly, and they both are very different. To the point that they can not be reconciled logically. Sure, you can use faith, but that is hardly proof, and it is blind.
Only if you close your eyes and pretend. Not to mention the reason Luke has Joseph go to Bethlehem is a bunch of bunk. There was no census until around 6 C.E. And it didn't include Galilee because it wasn't under direct Roman rule. More so, there is no reason why Joseph would have to return the town of David, from who he was separated by an extremely long time period. There in Roman records, or anywhere for that matter, that would suggest that was the process. Especially since it would have been ridiculous.
I've explained why the Magi went to Bethlehem. That is where Jesus was born, that is where the star was said to appear, that is where King Herod sent them. There is no evidence what so ever that the Magi went to Nazareth. No one ever says that.
A physical blood line was not important. There was no need for Jesus to genetically be related to King David. That is what I'm saying. The fact that Joseph was his legal father was all that was needed. And really, that was all that mattered. Because if the argument was that Jesus was related to King David through Mary, it would be scoffed at because that was not how they did things. It went through the fathers line, and only the fathers line.
No, we are talking about you not having any idea of Jewish tradition. It didn't completely shut off any argument because going through the mother proved nothing. That is why it is illogical to assume that the genealogy is through Mary, because it would be pointless.
However, one can use logic, research, and just a little knowledge to show that the NT does have problems, as well as what it means. You can ignore this, but then there is no reason to debate. No one is going to except that the reasoning that since you have faith, it's true.
I have no problem with you having faith that the NT is infallible. However, it is not a logical conclusion, and will not win any arguments because it flies in the face of reason, and what we know about history. You can have faith, but don't expect to win any arguments with it.

I am interested only in true exegesis.
I will leave you to your counterfeit exegesis which depends on setting the Scriptures against itself.

 

[fallingblood]

And why are you not addresssing all the NT Scriptures in that post #47, which show your grave error regarding the Day of Preparation being Thursday, instead of Friday,
as all those NT Scriptures clearly show?

First, it was only that verse that dealt with John. In this instance, I don't care what the synoptic Gospels say as that is irrelevant in seeing what John is stating.

Second, in John, the day was Friday as well in which Jesus was crucified. I never doubted that. However, it was that Friday in which John calls the Day of the Preparation of Passover. This explains why the following Sabbath is a special Sabbath, because it coincides with Passover.

Yes, and I gave it twice. That Sabbath was the beginning of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, one of the three feasts for which all males were required to attend at Jerusalem.

Where does it say that? Also, your idea of the Feast of Unleavened Bread isn't fully accurate. But it will point out a flaw in your reasoning.

You state that the Feast of Unleavened Bread starts after Passover. However, Matthew 26:17 states: 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?"

So, we see Matthew working it differently. According to Matthew, The Feast of Unleavened Bread starts on the day before Passover, or the Day of Preparation for the Passover.

Luke 22:1 states: "Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching." Again, not a suggestion of what you're saying. First century Judaism is different than today.

It doesn't need to state it. It was a fixed date on the Jewish calendar--the day after Passover.
I gave Scriptures from all four gospels in post #47 showing exactly when it was, which was the day after Passover.
Why are you not addressing them?

Assuming that what you are saying is true, Matthew and Luke disagree with you. They state that the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins either before Passover or is Passover.

As for why I'm not addressing the other scriptures, because they have nothing to do with what John is stating. I'm not saying that the synoptics are saying one thing. I'm saying that John does not state what you are saying. So why argue against the synoptics?

Oh, and it wasn't always a fixed date. As in, it hasn't always been at the same time.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread cannot fall on Passover, because it is a fixed date, which begins the day after Passover.

First, I was talking about the Special Sabbath, which could in fact fall on Passover. John states exactly that. Second, the Feast of Unleavened Bread can fall on Passover, as implied by Luke. Third, as Matthew states, the Feast of Unleavened bread begins before Passover day. Everything you said there simply doesn't work.

You haven't shown that it does.

Actually I think I have.

 

[smokydot]

Did you read my previous post? I show where it states that Jesus could not have possibly celebrated the Passover. Here it is again: More so, for John, it can't be Passover day anyway. John 18:28 states: "And they themselves (the Jewish authorities) did not enter the praetorium, lest they be rendered unclean; rather [they remained outside and remained legally clean] so that they might eat the Passover."

So we see that when Jesus, according to John, is being taken to the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, it was not yet Passover. This is right before the trial before Pilate, on the same day in which we are told that Jesus was crucified. Your explanation simply doesn't work when we look at what John is saying. And running around in circles, making things up that simply don't appear in John, will not work.
Not John. Fail.

Because other Scriptures showing Jesus' participation in the Passover are not from John does not mean they "fail."
It simply means you practice counterfeit exegesis which depends on setting the Scripture against itself and not allowing the testimony of other Scriptures
because they show your interpretation to be wrong.
That is not only counterfeit exegesis, that is absurd exegesis.

Nope. But hey, maybe you want to show me where.
Um, no.
You are aware that the Jews had more than just the Old Testament don't you? Just because you have no knowledge of Judaism doesn't make you right.
I've explained why you are wrong with John. If you can't argue against it, that's fine.
Have I not stated that before? You haven't shown any of the differences wrong. All you've been able to do is rewrite scripture to fit your narrow view.

I will leave you to your counterfeit and absurd exegesis.