Paul and Jesus

[waitasec]

smokeydot,

Actually, the text says the sixth hour. The third hour of Jewish time would hav been the sixth hour of Roman time.
So, in addition to different systems of nomenclature, we have different systems of time being used in these accounts.
Helps understand where all the confusion and supposed "contradictions" come from.

in the new american standard it says...
mark 15:25 3rd hour
john 19:14 the 6th hour...still doesn't add up.
or are you suggesting they used roman time in one gospel an the jewish time in another? then it is not a complete translation, i would think.

in regards to the curtain...
in mark, i will quote bart ehrman's jesus interrupted
"the curtain ripping in half shows that the death of jesus, god is made available to his people directly and not through the jewish priests. jesus death has brought an atonement see mark 10:45"
and in luke "...darkness comes over the land and the temple curtain is ripped while jesus is still alive...here the torn curtain must not indicate that jesus' death brings atonement-since he has not died yet. instead it shows that it is the hour of darkness as he says earlier in 22:53 and it marks the judgement of god against the jewish people. god is rejecting the jewish system of worship, symbolized by the temple."

each gospel was written for a specific audience. the temple was destroyed around the time the gospels emerged. from what i gather it is because the jews were trying to reconcile why god would allow the temple to be destroyed in the first place. the earliest jesus followers believed it was because the messiah was crucified by the jews.

as far as the passover/sabbath debate...
i don't have the tools to make my point more clear.
it's just that if this were indeed the word of god, why can't it be easier for the average joe to understand, instead of having the average joe become a detective? the translation of the bible requires it to not be transliterated but to be translated in it's original context. this jumping through hoops on both sides of the debate only reinstates my original premise; the bible is convoluted and ambiguous, what the point in that?

 

[smokydot]

smokeydot,
in the new american standard it says...
mark 15:25 3rd hour
john 19:14 the 6th hour...still doesn't add up.
or are you suggesting they used roman time in one gospel an the jewish time in another? then it is not a complete translation, i would think.

The sixth hour of Roman time was the third hour of Jewish time.
John was using Roman time, while Mark was using Jewish time. . .in addition to the different nomenclatures they used.

in regards to the curtain...
in mark, i will quote bart ehrman's jesus interrupted
"the curtain ripping in half shows that the death of jesus, god is made available to his people directly and not through the jewish priests. jesus death has brought an atonement see mark 10:45"
and in luke "...darkness comes over the land and the temple curtain is ripped while jesus is still alive...here the torn curtain must not indicate that jesus' death brings atonement-since he has not died yet. instead it shows that it is the hour of darkness as he says earlier in 22:53 and it marks the judgement of god against the jewish people. god is rejecting the jewish system of worship, symbolized by the temple."

each gospel was written for a specific audience. the temple was destroyed around the time the gospels emerged. from what i gather it is because the jews were trying to reconcile why god would allow the temple to be destroyed in the first place. the earliest jesus followers believed it was because the messiah was crucified by the jews.

So the rent curtain of the Temple means either the Levitical priesthood was abolished or it means the Jewish system of worship was rejected.
Well, since the Jewish system of worship had its basis in the Levitical priesthood, that looks pretty much the same to me.

One more point, did you know the curtain was rent from the top to the bottom, meaning it could not have been done by human hands,
for the top of the curtain was about 20 ft high, not to mention the thickness of a hand.

it's just that if this were indeed the word of god, why can't it be easier for the average joe to understand, instead of having the average joe become a detective?

So which average joe are you talking about, the one 2,000 years ago, or the one today. God hasn't changed, it's the average joe that has changed in 2,000 years.

the translation of the Bible requires it to not be transliterated but to be translated in its original context. this jumping through hoops on both sides of the debate only reinstates my original premise; the bible is convoluted and ambiguous, what the point in that?

Maybe it weeds out the faint-hearted.

 

[waitasec]

One more point, did you know the curtain was rent from the top to the bottom, meaning it could not have been done by human hands,
for the top of the curtain was about 20 ft high, not to mention the thickness of a hand.

your bait worked...
is there any other historical account of the curtain ripping? do you think this event would not have gone unnoticed? wouldn't you think this would have rocked the jewish world when a 4 inch thick veil (and there is debate if it was the outer curtain or the curtain covering the holy of holies), supernaturally rips in two? why is there no mention of this bizarre event recorded somewhere other than in the gospel stories? maybe because it is a literary tool....

So which average joe are you talking about, the one 2,000 years ago, or the one today. God hasn't changed, it's the average joe that has changed in 2,000 years.

well obviously i'm talking about the average joe of today, any average joe that witnessed such events would be a believer

Maybe it weeds out the faint-hearted.

maybe it weeds out the irrational thinkers from the rational thinkers...

 

[fallingblood]

Let's begin with this clear statement which is to be kept in mind here:

Lk 22:1 -- "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching."
The seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread was not the Passover. It began the day after Passover, and was a separate feast.

Accept according to Matthew, which says it started before Passover.

So how do you explain Matthew saying that the Feast of Unleavened Bread started on the Day of Preparation for Passover, or the day before Passover. Which is two days before you say it starts. That does seem like a problem to your argument.

That and what you're saying is nothing more than you creating a new Gospel. I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks against that. Actually condemns it.

 

[fallingblood]

So the rent curtain of the Temple means either the Levitical priesthood was abolished or it means the Jewish system of worship was rejected.
Well, since the Jewish system of worship had its basis in the Levitical priesthood, that looks pretty much the same to me.

Point to some scripture that says that. I would be interested.

Oh, and if you don't recall, the Temple had been destroyed once before. So wouldn't that be, by your logic, when Levitical priesthood was abolished?

One more point, did you know the curtain was rent from the top to the bottom, meaning it could not have been done by human hands,
for the top of the curtain was about 20 ft high, not to mention the thickness of a hand.
.

Yet, outside the Bible, even with Paul, we have no idea that ever happened. And I'm still waiting for you to point out where Paul and the other disciples said that Jewish law wasn't needed anymore and that Temple worship was gone. You haven't done that.

 

[smokydot]

Point to some scripture that says that. I would be interested.

It didn't come from me, it came from waitasec, in post #81.

Oh, and if you don't recall, the Temple had been destroyed once before. So wouldn't that be, by your logic, when Levitical priesthood was abolished?
Yet, outside the Bible, even with Paul, we have no idea that ever happened. And I'm still waiting for you to point out where Paul and the other disciples said that Jewish law wasn't needed anymore and that Temple worship was gone. You haven't done that.[/quote] Read the NT letter to the Hebrews, all of it, and then get back to me. I don't want to post the whole epistle.

 

[smokydot]

Accept according to Matthew, which says it started before Passover.
So how do you explain Matthew saying that the Feast of Unleavened Bread started on the Day of Preparation for Passover, or the day before Passover. Which is two days before you say it starts. That does seem like a problem to your argument.
That and what you're saying is nothing more than you creating a new Gospel. I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks against that. Actually condemns it.

Matthew does not say the Feast of Unleavened Bread started before Passover. Read the text carefully.
Do your homework on the common nomenclature of the time (it's already done for you in my post #44). . .stop going around the same bush.
Been there, done that.

 

[fallingblood]

It didn't come from me, it came from waitasec, in post #81.

Nope, I quoted you and thus was referring to what you were saying.

Read the NT letter to the Hebrews, all of it, and then get back to me. I don't want to post the whole epistle.

Read it as well as the commentary on it. Maybe you want to actually show me what you're talking about.

As a side note, a work written some half century after the fact may not be the best source. Just saying.

 

[fallingblood]

Matthew does not say the Feast of Unleavened Bread started before Passover. Read the text carefully.
Do your homework on the common nomenclature of the time (it's already done for you in my post #44). . .stop going around the same bush.
Been there, done that.

I read the text carefully. Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

So you're saying that scripture is wrong. At least now we are on the same page.

 

[dogsgod]

Or my favorite meaningless polemical term that he uses: "mythicist."

myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]​

–noun​

a person who views various figures of antiquity, including gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.






Polemical indeed, if only everyone could just believe as they are told without questioning the status quo.



​

 

[outhouse]

myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]


–noun


a person who views various figures of antiquity, including gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.​

Polemical indeed, if only everyone could just believe as they are told without questioning the status quo.​

​

sounds like the name of my religion, hey im holy again lol

 

[smokydot]

your bait worked...
is there any other historical account of the curtain ripping? do you think this event would not have gone unnoticed? wouldn't you think this would have rocked the jewish world when a 4 inch thick veil (and there is debate if it was the outer curtain or the curtain covering the holy of holies), supernaturally rips in two? why is there no mention of this bizarre event recorded somewhere other than in the gospel stories? maybe because it is a literary tool....

I think it was fact.

It is mentioned in the NT letter to the Hebrews as symbolizing Christ's opening the way directly to God. See Heb 10:19-22.

well obviously i'm talking about the average joe of today, any average joe that witnessed such events would be a believer
maybe it weeds out the irrational thinkers from the rational thinkers...

 

[smokydot]

There's a word for that: eisegesis.

Thanks.
I distinguish them this way:
exegesis - reading out of the Scriptures
eisegesis - reading into the Scriptures

So I see setting one Scripture against another as a little different--as counterfeit exegesis.

 

[smokydot]

Point to some scripture that says that. I would be interested.

See my post #101.

Oh, and if you don't recall, the Temple had been destroyed once before. So wouldn't that be, by your logic, when Levitical priesthood was abolished?
Yet, outside the Bible, even with Paul, we have no idea that ever happened. And I'm still waiting for you to point out where Paul and the other disciples said that Jewish law wasn't needed anymore and that Temple worship was gone. You haven't done that.

 

[smokydot]

Accept according to Matthew, which says it started before Passover.
So how do you explain Matthew saying that the Feast of Unleavened Bread started on the Day of Preparation for Passover, or the day before Passover. Which is two days before you say it starts. That does seem like a problem to your argument.

See my post #80, where this is thoroughly presented, as well as in my post #44.
But its detailed.

That and what you're saying is nothing more than you creating a new Gospel. I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks against that. Actually condemns it.

 

[smokydot]

I read the text carefully. Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
So you're saying that scripture is wrong. At least now we are on the same page.

That is all explained in my post #80 and #44.

 

[fallingblood]

smokydot, I'm done with you. It's not worth any effort to continue on a debate with you if you are unwilling to debate logically. Saying, see post whatever doesn't cut it. Because if I stated something afterwards, obviously I'm disagree with what you previously stated.

I highly suggest Bart Ehrmans book, Misquoting Jesus.

 

[waitasec]

I think it was fact.

do you think this because you must? it's ok to change your mind, you know



give in to the power in the dark side...
it is your only hope
:sw:

 

[smokydot]

do you think this because you must? it's ok to change your mind, you know

That was a poor choice of words, dictated by the terms of your post.

I believe it is fact, as did the author of the NT letter to the Hebrews.



give in to the power in the dark side...
it is your only hope
:sw:[/quote]

 

[smokydot]

smokydot, I'm done with you. It's not worth any effort to continue on a debate with you if you are unwilling to debate logically. Saying, see post whatever doesn't cut it. Because if I stated something afterwards, obviously I'm disagree with what you previously stated.

But you didn't ever address those posts.
Disagreeing by "implication" is not refutation. . .refute them.
Show the Scriptures do not say what I have presented.

I don't intend to keep repeating the same information over and over to you.
The questions you keep asking regarding the Jewish feasts and the day Christ was crucified are addressed in detail in my posts #80 and #44,
and your question on the NT letter to the Hebrews' abolition of the Levitical priesthood is addressed in post #101.
If you're sincere, and not just playing games, as is a not-uncommon practice in this Forum, you will specificially refute the information presented in them.

I highly suggest Bart Ehrmans book, Misquoting Jesus.

Let me suggest you read the Bible for yourself, in English first, before you try reading it in Greek or Hebrew, and familiarize yourself with the text,
instead of getting it second hand from your misinformed "authorities."