A scripturally accurate view of the events celebrated in the Easter season

[AFrazier]

The women were on the way when this event took place. The guards fall as dead. Later the women talk to the angels. Later Jesus appears to them and they too fall on their faces (though to worship).

Nice try, but that's not what it says.

 

[Standing Up]

Nice try, but that's not what it says.

Then you've introduced another contradiction. Mk, Lk, Jn, say the stone was already rolled away when they arrived.

 

[Standing Up]

What you just said is not true at all. Have you read this section of the Talmud? As I already stated, and as you clearly ignored, the debate in the section you are referencing was over the amount of time permitted to eat it. What sacrifices there were, and on which days they were offered, was not in dispute.

Nor am I revising John. How John is understood has everything to do with the gospels not contradicting. John can be interpreted more than one way. The Synoptics cannot. If they are in agreement rather than contradiction, then John is not saying what you think he is.

The argument was over eating on 1 day (14) and 1 night (14) because scripture says "none left to morning". This is son of Tema view. OR 2 days (14 and 15) and 1 night (15) (Babylonian Talmud).

AND IT IS EATEN FOR TWO DAYS etc. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the son of Tema. For it was taught: The son of Tema said: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover, and it may only be eaten a day and a night, whereas the hagigah of the fifteenth1 is eaten two days and one night;

 

[Standing Up]

Except that that's not how it reads according to the Greek. The break in the clause exists where it does for a reason.

the greek: Having risen, moreover early the first of the week He appeared first to Mary.

or

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Early on the first day of the week, after He had risen, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had driven seven demons.

NET Bible
[[Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.......................

What's your take on why it didn't bother them to kill the men on the cross on the Sabbath of the 15th and have dead bodies hang for a while - but it bothered them immensely to think of the bodies being on the crosses on the next Sabbath?

What was so special regarding that weekly 'high Sabbath" that it trumped in importance the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath?

I understand that you will likely tell me why the weekly Sabbath was considered a bit more special than most weekly Sabbaths. But surely not special enough to out shine, as it were, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

 

[AFrazier]

What's your take on why it didn't bother them to kill the men on the cross on the Sabbath of the 15th and have dead bodies hang for a while - but it bothered them immensely to think of the bodies being on the crosses on the next Sabbath?

What was so special regarding that weekly 'high Sabbath" that it trumped in importance the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath?

I understand that you will likely tell me why the weekly Sabbath was considered a bit more special than most weekly Sabbaths. But surely not special enough to out shine, as it were, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The problem was not that he was hanging on a holiday Sabbath, but that the law prohibited him from remaining all night on the tree. There were religious duties to be attended to.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)

But off the cuff, that's the best answer I have at the moment. I'm honestly getting burned out on this conversation. All we've been doing is arguing satellite arguments that skirt the known facts, and I just don't have the energy for it anymore.

 

[AFrazier]

the greek: Having risen, moreover early the first of the week He appeared first to Mary.

or

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Early on the first day of the week, after He had risen, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had driven seven demons.

NET Bible
[[Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.

I'm responding to you only to make it clear that I disagree with you. I wouldn't want my silence to your comments to be mistakenly perceived as concession. Nor would I want to let you believe that you stumped or thwarted me.

I just don't want to argue with you anymore. I'm tired. But best of luck to you. We will disagree.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm responding to you only to make it clear that I disagree with you. I wouldn't want my silence to your comments to be mistakenly perceived as concession. Nor would I want to let you believe that you stumped or thwarted me.

I just don't want to argue with you anymore. I'm tired. But best of luck to you. We will disagree.

No problem. C/u around.

 

[Standing Up]

What's your take on why it didn't bother them to kill the men on the cross on the Sabbath of the 15th and have dead bodies hang for a while - but it bothered them immensely to think of the bodies being on the crosses on the next Sabbath?

What was so special regarding that weekly 'high Sabbath" that it trumped in importance the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath?

I understand that you will likely tell me why the weekly Sabbath was considered a bit more special than most weekly Sabbaths. But surely not special enough to out shine, as it were, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Good question. As AFrazior said, it wasn't about the Sabbath, except John has reaffirmed Christ's death on the 14th. As the chief priests said in Mt. Mk, Lk, we won't arrest or crucify Jesus on the 15th (first day of unleavened bread).

 

[AFrazier]

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Until the Synoptics are answered to, nothing is reaffirmed with the Johannine interpretation as it pertains to anything other than a Nisan 15th crucifixion. The Last Supper was the Passover. You guys have spent all your time and energy trying to argue why the Last Supper couldn't have been the Passover, when three of the gospels say in no uncertain terms that it was. Until you can credibly answer that difficulty, your point of view is wrong.

Carry on.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Until the Synoptics are answered to, nothing is reaffirmed with the Johannine interpretation as it pertains to anything other than a Nisan 15th crucifixion. The Last Supper was the Passover. You guys have spent all your time and energy trying to argue why the Last Supper couldn't have been the Passover, when three of the gospels say in no uncertain terms that it was. Until you can credibly answer that difficulty, your point of view is wrong. Carry on.

I believe that it has been at least credibly answered - regardless of your singular interpretation of the arrival just at sundown by Jesus and the other disciples.

I do not believe that the words of Jesus concerning His time in the tomb or the situation with the two Sabbaths and the spices or the apparent disobedience concerning the Passover meal's practice or the events which followed on what you have agreed to be a Sabbath or even the fulfillment of types concerning Christ's death or the O.T. pictures of the Passover, the exodus. and the crossing of the Red Sea has been answered any more credibly than has the problem of the single statement in the gospel of Mark concerning the preparation of the room for the last supper being supposedly done on the 14th has.

You have addressed selective traditions with quotes from the Talmud and not addressed at all the tradition of the ridding of the house of leaven at the beginning of the 14th - which is talked about more than the others in the Talmud.

You'll disagree - no doubt. But that is my personal opinion.

 

[AFrazier]

I believe that it has been at least credibly answered - regardless of your singular interpretation of the arrival just at sundown by Jesus and the other disciples.

I do not believe that the words of Jesus concerning His time in the tomb or the situation with the two Sabbaths and the spices or the apparent disobedience concerning the Passover meal's practice or the events which followed on what you have agreed to be a Sabbath or even the fulfillment of types concerning Christ's death or the O.T. pictures of the Passover, the exodus. and the crossing of the Red Sea has been answered any more credibly than has the problem of the single statement in the gospel of Mark concerning the preparation of the room for the last supper being supposedly done on the 14th has.

You have addressed selective traditions with quotes from the Talmud and not addressed at all the tradition of the ridding of the house of leaven at the beginning of the 14th - which is talked about more than the others in the Talmud.

You'll disagree - no doubt. But that is my personal opinion.

You see my friend ... this is the problem. You've manufactured a dozen arguments to explain why it couldn't have happened precisely when they said it happened. *laugh* In my mind, your objections don't prove that it didn't happen when they say it happened. It simply means that the reasons you're giving for why it couldn't have happened when they said it happened aren't nearly as prohibitive to it happening when they said it happened as you have convinced yourself that they are. You're arguments are all deductions and interpretations. My arguments are direct statements. When we both consider the evidence as a whole, I can't get past those direct statements, while you can't get past your own deductions. Your explanations for Mark and Luke are not based on credible facts. It's just your own warped interpretation, designed to support your hypothesis. It has been from the get go. I formed my point of view around those statements, while you formed yours in spite of them.

Don't know what to tell you.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You see my friend ... this is the problem. You've manufactured a dozen arguments to explain why it couldn't have happened precisely when they said it happened. *laugh* In my mind, your objections don't prove that it didn't happen when they say it happened. It simply means that the reasons you're giving for why it couldn't have happened when they said it happened aren't nearly as prohibitive to it happening when they said it happened as you have convinced yourself that they are. You're arguments are all deductions and interpretations. My arguments are direct statements. When we both consider the evidence as a whole, I can't get past those direct statements, while you can't get past your own deductions. Your explanations for Mark and Luke are not based on credible facts. It's just your own warped interpretation, designed to support your hypothesis. It has been from the get go. I formed my point of view around those statements, while you formed yours in spite of them.

Don't know what to tell you.

Right back at you.

I formed my point of view around the statements of the Son of the living God as a base starting point.

To each his own I suppose.

Agree to disagree?

 

[AFrazier]

Right back at you.

I formed my point of view around the statements of the Son of the living God as a base starting point.

To each his own I suppose.

Agree to disagree?

I do not agree to disagree. We are to be of one mind and of one accord. I agree only that we disagree. I'm still right, and you're still dodging the direct statements of when the event occurred. Your arguments count for nothing as long as three gospels are all telling us that the last supper was the passover.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I do not agree to disagree. We are to be of one mind and of one accord. I agree only that we disagree. I'm still right, and you're still dodging the direct statements of when the event occurred. Your arguments count for nothing as long as three gospels are all telling us that the last supper was the passover.

And your arguments count for nothing so long as the clear statements of the Son of God in all of the gospels disagree with you.

As for me - I'll take the direct statements of Jesus and the credible explanations that I have presented up against your denials of the direct statements of Jesus and the credible explanations that you have presented any day - to base my beliefs on.

That's just the way I roll.

To each his own I suppose.

 

[AFrazier]

And your arguments count for nothing so long as the clear statements of the Son of God in all of the gospels disagree with you.

As for me - I'll take the direct statements of Jesus and the credible explanations that I have presented up against your denials of the direct statements of Jesus and the credible explanations that you have presented any day - to base my beliefs on.

That's just the way I roll.

To each his own I suppose.

Still dodging and deflecting.

So to make sure I fully understand your point of view after the many morphs it has gone through due to your necessary changes and denials to deflect the plain statements of Matthew, Mark and Luke ...

... on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, as the sun set and it became the 14th, which is the beginning of the first day of unleavened bread when the passover is slain (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7), Jesus sent two disciples (Mark 14:13), Peter and John (Luke 22:8), at night (Knox), in the dark (Knox), to the city where they would meet a man with a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13, Luke 22:10), follow him (Mark 14:13), and follow him into his house (Luke 22:10), as strangers, at night (Knox). They were to inquire about his guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11), and inform him that Jesus would both keep the passover (Matthew 26:18) and eat the passover with his disciples in said guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11), though he wouldn't actually be eating the passover (Knox). Then the disciples did as Jesus instructed them and made ready the passover (Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13), which means that they searched for leaven in preparation for a passover meal that Jesus said he would eat, but that he never would (Knox), and not that they went to the temple and had the lamb slain for their party of thirteen, because it was still the night before (Knox). When the evening was come (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17), meaning the evening retroactively to several hours before, since this whole scenario began after sunset (Knox), Jesus sat down with the twelve apostles (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14). He had greatly desired to eat that passover with them before he suffered (Luke 22:15), though he would have to suffer the disappointment of not being around long enough to do so (Knox).

This is the explanation you have offered of these events. Are you sure that's your final answer? Because it's ridiculous. He sent them to secure a room where he would keep the passover. He said he would eat the passover. They made ready the passover. And Jesus had greatly desired to eat that passover with them before he suffered. How can you actually look at the reality of what you're offering up and keep lying to yourself? The last supper was the passover, and a single synecdochical passage of a sign does not nullify that, or hold greater weight than a direct statement of chronological fact.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Still dodging and deflecting.

So to make sure I fully understand your point of view after the many morphs it has gone through due to your necessary changes and denials to deflect the plain statements of Matthew, Mark and Luke ...

... on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, as the sun set and it became the 14th, which is the beginning of the first day of unleavened bread when the passover is slain (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7), Jesus sent two disciples (Mark 14:13), Peter and John (Luke 22:8), at night (Knox), in the dark (Knox), to the city where they would meet a man with a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13, Luke 22:10), follow him (Mark 14:13), and follow him into his house (Luke 22:10), as strangers, at night (Knox). They were to inquire about his guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11), and inform him that Jesus would both keep the passover (Matthew 26:18) and eat the passover with his disciples in said guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11), though he wouldn't actually be eating the passover (Knox). Then the disciples did as Jesus instructed them and made ready the passover (Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13), which means that they searched for leaven in preparation for a passover meal that Jesus said he would eat, but that he never would (Knox), and not that they went to the temple and had the lamb slain for their party of thirteen, because it was still the night before (Knox). When the evening was come (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17), meaning the evening retroactively to several hours before, since this whole scenario began after sunset (Knox), Jesus sat down with the twelve apostles (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14). He had greatly desired to eat that passover with them before he suffered (Luke 22:15), though he would have to suffer the disappointment of not being around long enough to do so (Knox).

This is the explanation you have offered of these events. Are you sure that's your final answer? Because it's ridiculous. He sent them to secure a room where he would keep the passover. He said he would eat the passover. They made ready the passover. And Jesus had greatly desired to eat that passover with them before he suffered. How can you actually look at the reality of what you're offering up and keep lying to yourself? The last supper was the passover, and a single synecdochical passage of a sign does not nullify that, or hold greater weight than a direct statement of chronological fact.

And you believe that there is no need to come up with any explanations for any difficulties simply because you choose to "first" disregard the plain words of Jesus concerning the time in the tomb and align yourself with the synoptics over and against the gospel of John.

I choose to find a narrative which incorporates all of the gospel renditions.

You come up with at least as many alternatives to what we find in the scriptures as I do.

I have the clear statements of the Lord to add to my, perhaps equal, alternatives to your "proofs".

IMO the difference comes down to the words of the Lord Himself combined with the typology of the O.T. narratives and the obvious N.T. fulfillment's of those types.

I could create a dialog of my own to counter yours I suppose. But I won't bother to do so.

I'll go with mine and you can go with yours.

Agree to disagree?

 

[prodromos]

Figures of speech are plain, common and clearly understood uses of language.
"three days and three nights" is clearly synecdoche.
It doesn't cease to be a figure of speech simply because God is speaking the words, after all there are many other examples where Christ used figures of speech which no one takes as literal (there are always a few nuts who do though)

 

[AFrazier]

And you believe that there is no need to come up with any explanations for any difficulties simply because you choose to "first" disregard the plain words of Jesus concerning the time in the tomb and align yourself with the synoptics over and against the gospel of John.

A while ago I said that your idea was based solely on the passage in Matthew concerning Jonas. You denied it. And yet, here is the proof of it. You're expecting me to disregard two dozen plainly stated passages of chronological information in favor of a single allegorical statement that, taken literally, creates no less than fourteen contradictions with other passages stating "the third day," rather than the fourth day, which is what three full days and three full nights equates to.

I choose to find a narrative which incorporates all of the gospel renditions.

If this were true, we wouldn't be having this debate, because you would be incorporating the Synoptic renditions, which all plainly tell us that the last supper was the passover. But you're ignoring this evidence from three separate gospels because it doesn't fit your hypothesis.

You come up with at least as many alternatives to what we find in the scriptures as I do.

In all fairness, what I "come up with" are answers or explanations to your objections to the plain statements of scripture concerning the chronological information. I refuse to be a hypocrite and criticize you for making satellite arguments while doing the same myself. Three gospels say the last supper was the passover. Arguing that it wasn't when three gospels say it was is not creating an alternative interpretation or position. It's just a plain denial of scripture in favor of what you choose to believe. You think you have valid arguments against the passover last supper, but your arguments cease to be valid the moment one of the gospels says, in no uncertain terms, that the last supper was the passover, like Matthew 26:18-19, Mark 14:14, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:11, Luke 22:13, and Luke 22:15. These tell us that Jesus intended to keep the passover, and eat the passover, that he sent the two disciples to make ready the passover, that they made ready the passover as instructed, and that Jesus had greatly desired to eat that passover before he suffered. And these statements are further bolstered by Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, which tell us that Jesus sent the two disciples to make ready the passover on the first day of unleavened bread when the passover was slain.

I have the clear statements of the Lord to add to my, perhaps equal, alternatives to your "proofs".

Statement, singular. The passage in Matthew is the only one that gives "three days and three nights," and many are in agreement that the statement is meant to portray a concept rather than an exact, to the minute period of time. He would be in the grave three days. He would also rise on the third day, which prohibits any literalist translation, since the "third day" would disallow a full and exact seventy-two hours. The final day would only be partial, unless one chooses to believe in a fourth day resurrection. And since he was in the grave less than the full seventy-two hours, having risen on the third day prior to the full completion of the third day, the passage is, by definition, synecdochical, because a portion of at least one day is being counted as full.
So you're basing your entire point of view on something that can be demonstrated to be allegory, and so I'm laughing again, because you're talking about my "proofs" in quotes as though they are mere allegations of truth, when they are, in fact, direct statements of scripture. You're truly unbelievable. Again, why do you lie to yourself like that? We both know that I'm right.

I could create a dialog of my own to counter yours I suppose. But I won't bother to do so.

Not a problem. I just took the one I did for your position, but took out all the stuff you made up that lacks scriptural or historical evidentiary support.

... on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, which is the first day of unleavened bread when the passover is slain (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7), Jesus sent two disciples (Mark 14:13), Peter and John (Luke 22:8), to the city where they would meet a man with a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13,Luke 22:10). They were to follow him (Mark 14:13), and follow him into his house (Luke 22:10). They were to inquire about his guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11), and inform him that Jesus would both keep the passover (Matthew 26:18) and eat the passover with his disciples in said guest chamber (Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11). Then the disciples did as Jesus instructed them and made ready the passover (Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13). As evening began (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17), Jesus sat down with the twelve apostles (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14), and he had greatly desired to eat that passover with them before he suffered (Luke 22:15).

Now, before you make some silly statement about "opinions" "points of view" "proofs" and whatnot, understand that the paragraph above is pure scripture. If you deny what they are saying, then you are denying the direct statements of three separate gospels. So think before you speak.

Agree to disagree?

I told you before that I can't do that. I can only agree that we disagree. I can never agree to disagree. To do so would be to enable you. It expresses a concession to the belief that we have opposing opinions based on inconclusive and debatable evidence, each of which opinions is potentially valid depending upon one's point of view. But we don't have opposing opinions, the evidence is neither inconclusive, nor debatable, and your opinion is not, by any stretch of the imagination, valid. My position is based on the direct chronological evidence. Your position is an interpretation derived from an allegorical statement, supported by the denial of all other known facts. I'm right. You're not. And so I can never agree to disagree and allow you to walk away supposing that there are two potentially valid points of view, when there is but one.

I love you brother. I really do. But you're just wrong on this. And no matter how many times you tit for tat me and repeat such statements back to me, you're still wrong. The last supper was the passover. The crucifixion was the 15th. The Wednesday crucifixion is a lie. And all your arguments attempting to disprove a passover last supper are just arguments attempting to disprove the scripture.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.........I refuse to be a hypocrite and criticize you for making satellite arguments while doing the same myself..........And so I can never agree to disagree and allow you to walk away supposing that there are two potentially valid points of view, when there is but one..............

As I see it - you also either disregard scriptures completely or twist them to fit your position - just as you accuse me of doing. It seems hypocritical to me for you not to admit it.

If you want to - you can imagine that Judas was supposed to have been going out to visit a very special "Sabbath exempt" shop to purchase some emergency rations for the Passover meal.

You can imagine, if you want to, that Jesus and His disciples would observe the Passover in a way that goes against the O.T. prescriptions.

You can even imagine that Nicodemus had a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes just lying around in case he needed it and that it didn't have to be purchased on what we all know to be the Sabbath of the 15th.

If you want to - you can even imagine that that same special Sabbath exempt shop that Judas was supposedly going to also sold burial cloths out the back door on the Sabbath. Perhaps that would be your explanation of how Joseph was able to purchase it on the Sabbath as Mark clearly says that he did - if it was the 15th.

I can agree to disagree with you even if you, more than a little piously and hypocritically IMO, can't agree to disagree with me. But have it your way brother.