That darn bible: Contradictions galore (Jesus, Matthew, quote, Jews)
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.
That's a good question. There are a couple of theories, one being that it did exist, of course. Others that it was to conceal that Jesus was a nazirite, rather than a Nazarene. The one I'm favouring is that he did come from the area of Nazareth (gen-Nessaret) rather than a town that hadn't been built.
The nazirite idea is interesting because it involves being pure while at the same time offering sin atonement sacrifices. But it blows away Jesus drinking wine at Passover because nazirites cannot drink wine or even have anything to do with grapes. However my theory about the Eucharist institution passages is that they derive from Paul, who is describing a meatless Passover Seder as practiced in the Diaspora. But then my theory of the Jesus as sin atonement sacrifice idea is that it also came from Paul. Plus, nazirites must avoid dead bodies and tombs, which Jesus does not.
Cupper, when you get to Heaven, ask him about those controversial verses, I am sure He will be glad to clear it with you. Presently I am watching "The Greatest Story Ever Told", on the Premium channels
Or maybe Luke's source was different from Matthew's.
We're talking 50-60 years after the fact, after all. Of course memory fades. These people were not sitting around in the same room, after all. Each depended upon those who knew Jesus, or who knew people who knew people who knew Jesus. Obviously there can discrepancy in detail. This does not mean the general story is not correct.
PS John was a crazy person writing out of the weirdo church in Antioch. There is good reason that his gospel is so different from the others.
There are too many points of similarity. The message/ dialogue are identical. And the remark about never having seen such faith, not in Israel, (and this is the point of the story - how much more worthy gentiles are of Jesus' favour) and even the detail of entering Capernaum.
Compared with the utterly different version in John, it looks like a basic common story with some individual elaborations. The similarities of the essential elements convinces me of a story in front of them, not vaguely recollected tales of Jesus told round the fireside.
John may have been crazy, though Matthew strikes me as taking the palm in whackiness with his mobile star, descending angels perching on the tomb door and the shekel -eating fish; not to mention Sinking simon and the opening tombs, but that does not explain the utterly different account of the healing at a distance.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-18-2015 at 05:45 PM..
The nazirite idea is interesting because it involves being pure while at the same time offering sin atonement sacrifices. But it blows away Jesus drinking wine at Passover because nazirites cannot drink wine or even have anything to do with grapes. However my theory about the Eucharist institution passages is that they derive from Paul, who is describing a meatless Passover Seder as practiced in the Diaspora. But then my theory of the Jesus as sin atonement sacrifice idea is that it also came from Paul. Plus, nazirites must avoid dead bodies and tombs, which Jesus does not.
I agree. However, whatever Jesus and his lads were eating at the last supper, it wasn't the passover, which of course fell on the Saturday when he was in the tomb. The Nazirite vow would have been taken at that little party, and he tanked up of the juice of the vine, saying he wouldn't touch the stuff (or presumably cut his hair) again until the kingdom of God came.
Which one could say was on the cross, or actually failed with his messianic mission. It is an attractive theory (hypothesis) but I am not entirely convinced, unless there is a lot more truth to the Jesus story (though not the Gospel story) than I am willing to bet good money on.
If Nazareth had not yet been built, then I am left with the district of Nazareth, which already existed.
P.s - I can hear someone saying: "But Jesus was described as a Nazorene all through the gospels, but here you are, saying that he only became one at the very end."
But the point is that, if that 'end' made him a Nazirite (Nazorene) that is how he (and his followers) would have been known thereafter, and the gospels have an agenda from the start of explaining that Jesus was not a Nazirite, but a Nazorene -from Nazareth. And for once, I tend to agree with them, though I once did favour the 'Nazirite' theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-18-2015 at 05:57 PM..
I agree. However, whatever Jesus and his lads were eating at the last supper, it wasn't the passover, which of course fell on the Saturday when he was in the tomb. The Nazirite vow would have been taken at that little party, and he tanked up of the juice of the vine, saying he wouldn't touch the stuff (or presumably cut his hair) again until the kingdom of God came.
Which one could say was on the cross, or actually failed with his messianic mission. It is an attractive theory (hypothesis) but I am not entirely convinced, unless there is a lot more truth to the Jesus story (though not the Gospel story) than I am willing to bet good money on.
If Nazareth had not yet been built, then I am left with the district of Nazareth, which already existed.
Mark, Matthew and Luke all say explicitly that it was Passover. John disagrees, to associate Jesus more closely with the actual sacrifice of the lambs instead of the meatless symbolic bread 'sacrifice' as practiced in the Diaspora where Temple sacrificed lambs were unavailable. As I opined earlier the Last Supper Eucharist institution story came from Paul, whose audience lived in the Diaspora.
I am of the opinion, based on circumstantial evidence, that there was a historic Jesus and that part of the Gospels were based on real events. But I draw the line at the supernatural stuff and on Jesus planning on being a sacrifice. Jesus, a popular messianic style preacher, unexpectedly got killed instead of bringing on the kingdom of God. Paul used all sorts of not quite compatible references to Jewish traditions (and maybe Philo) to turn this incomprehensible tragedy into a brilliant victory instead. That is how I see it, anyway.
I am not married to the idea of a Nazareth existing at that time. It just sounds like the most likely explanation.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,933,385 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by perry335654
Cupper, when you get to Heaven, ask him about those controversial verses, I am sure He will be glad to clear it with you. Presently I am watching "The Greatest Story Ever Told", on the Premium channels
In other words, you have absolutely no answer to the question.
Movies do tell great stories, don't they? Remember, stories are not documentaries. Enjoy the fables presented.
Mark, Matthew and Luke all say explicitly that it was Passover. John disagrees, to associate Jesus more closely with the actual sacrifice of the lambs instead of the meatless symbolic bread 'sacrifice' as practiced in the Diaspora where Temple sacrificed lambs were unavailable. As I opined earlier the Last Supper Eucharist institution story came from Paul, whose audience lived in the Diaspora.
I am of the opinion, based on circumstantial evidence, that there was a historic Jesus and that part of the Gospels were based on real events. But I draw the line at the supernatural stuff and on Jesus planning on being a sacrifice. Jesus, a popular messianic style preacher, unexpectedly got killed instead of bringing on the kingdom of God. Paul used all sorts of not quite compatible references to Jewish traditions (and maybe Philo) to turn this incomprehensible tragedy into a brilliant victory instead. That is how I see it, anyway.
I am not married to the idea of a Nazareth existing at that time. It just sounds like the most likely explanation.
Well, I may have to think again. It is true that all four agree it was passover at the time of the Last supper. The next day was the trial and crucifixion and sabbath the day after. I am sure there is a mention of Jesus on the cross while the sacrificial lambs were being slaughtered for passover, and that the last supper is on the First day of passover, which is when the lambs were selected for passover (1). If we dismiss all that as inaccurate, then we can have the Passover (which does not actually mention the Seder lamb -shank: just bread and wine) on the Thursday, arrest that evening (when Friday starts) trial and crucifixion on Friday and getting Jesus down before Sabbath begins when three stars are visible in the evening sky.
The crucifixion story works with Sabbath and without Passover, but Jesus just misses, rather (as it does if we try the ploy of a Pharisee calendar rather than the Sadducee one), being the sacrificial lamb of Passover (I agree that this reflects a theological preference of early devotees). There are other reasons why I don't think it could have been Passover or anywhere near it, but we are off the topic, quite enough.
(1) I read that the 'first day' is when the lambs are selected, but the gospels agree that this first day was when the lambs were slaughtered in the temple and I suppose that means they could be served up that evening as the Seder feast. That means the Friday was after passover but still the preparation day for sabbath and Jesus dies really a day or so too late to be a Passover sacrifice, but I guess that will be near enough.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-19-2015 at 12:56 AM..
Well, I may have to think again. It is true that all four agree it was passover at the time of the Last supper. The next day was the trial and crucifixion and sabbath the day after. I am sure there is a mention of Jesus on the cross while the sacrificial lambs were being slaughtered for passover, and that the last supper is on the First day of passover, which is when the lambs were selected for passover (1). If we dismiss all that as inaccurate, then we can have the Passover (which does not actually mention the Seder lamb -shank: just bread and wine) on the Thursday, arrest that evening (when Friday starts) trial and crucifixion on Friday and getting Jesus down before Sabbath begins when three stars are visible in the evening sky.
The crucifixion story works with Sabbath and without Passover, but Jesus just misses, rather (as it does if we try the ploy of a Pharisee calendar rather than the Sadducee one), being the sacrificial lamb of Passover (I agree that this reflects a theological preference of early devotees). There are other reasons why I don't think it could have been Passover or anywhere near it, but we are off the topic, quite enough.
(1) I read that the 'first day' is when the lambs are selected, but the gospels agree that this first day was when the lambs were slaughtered in the temple and I suppose that means they could be served up that evening as the Seder feast. That means the Friday was after passover but still the preparation day for sabbath and Jesus dies really a day or so too late to be a Passover sacrifice, but I guess that will be near enough.
Here is what I am saying: Mark, Matthew and Luke all have the Last Supper be a Passover Seder. John does not. Mark, Matthew and Luke all have Jesus crucified and die on Passover. John has Jesus crucified and die on the day before Passover.
Quote:
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?”
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”
16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
Mark makes it clear that Jesus observed a Passover Seder and that he did it at the normal time, the evening after the lambs are sacrificed.
Quote:
Matthew 26
17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover
20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve.
Matthew agrees with Mark that Jesus observed a Passover Seder at the normal time.
Quote:
Luke 22
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
Luke also makes it clear that this is a Passover Seder being observed at the normal time, the evening after the lambs are sacrificed.
There is no issue of Pharisee versus Sadducee calendars or ‘northern’ versus ‘southern’ customs (another one I have heard) or Diaspora two day Passovers. Mark, Matthew and Luke have the Last Supper be a Passover Seder linked to sacrificing the lambs in the Temple, a totally unambiguous reference.
John makes no mention of Passover in relation to the Last Supper nor does he include the Eucharist institution. His first mention of that Passover (he earlier mentions the previous two years) is after Jesus is arrested. He makes it clear that the arrest, trial, crucifixion and death of Jesus all happen on the day before Passover, which will begin that evening.
Quote:
John 18
28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
John 19
13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
…
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
…
42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
John makes it clear that all of this happens before sundown on the day before Passover. Jesus dies well after noon but well before sundown. Although John does not specifically say it, this would be during the period when the lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple.
Passover is a special Sabbath that entails all the rules and obligations of a weekly Sabbath plus whatever is unique to it. Whether this Passover happens to fall on a weekly Sabbath is not clear from John. The other Gospels strongly imply a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Sunday morning would be the first lawful and practical time to perform the required burial rites. But John has the burial rites performed before the burial. This removes any reason to visit the tomb as quickly as possible so an unknown number of days could have elapsed. (On the other hand it removes any reason to visit the tomb at all except to confirm the resurrection.)
The Synoptic Gospels raise serious concerns by having the Last Supper be a Passover Seder. The Sanhedrin would not conduct a trial at night especially on Passover. It is unlikely that Jews would unilaterally deal with Gentiles on Passover or demand an execution on Passover.
And of course the Seder does not sound like the kind that would be observed in Jerusalem in the Temple era. It sounds more like the kind that would be observed in the Diaspora. This is where Paul spent his time and where his audiences lived. This is of course the same Paul who introduced not just the Eucharist formula but the various Passover and sacrifice references into the Jesus story.
By having Jesus die on the day before Passover and dropping the Eucharist institution, John avoids all those improbabilities while at the same time more closely linking Jesus to an actual sacrifice, rather than a Diaspora style symbolic one. And might the pre-burial rituals and ambiguous Sabbath references be an attempt to bypass the ‘on the third day’ and ‘after three days’ apparent contradiction in the Synoptics?
Yep. I agree with all that and the point about the diaspora Seder is a useful one. I am persuaded that the Last supper could have been on Passover, which would mean that the Saturday was Sabbath near the passover but was not the Passover day itself.
Who Brought the Capernaum Centurion’s Request to Jesus?
It’s the centurion himself who comes.
Matthew 8:5: And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him.
The centurion sends some elders.
Luke 7:3: And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
The centurion sends friends. Same book, same chapter as "elders."
Luke 7:6: Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof.
Out of context? Transcriptual errors?
Or just another case of a biblical's right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing?
It was a centrion who sent his freindly Jews to Jesus.
ha ha, you must suck at math.
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.
