Quote:Again any meal he ate during Passover week would be considered a Passover meal.

(June 27, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote: Again any meal he ate during Passover week would be considered a Passover meal.

You didn't answer my question.  Where in John does it say that Jesus ate the Passover meal?

(June 27, 2016 at 9:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Again any meal he ate during Passover week would be considered a Passover meal.

Stop telling jews how to be jews dripshit, you turd.  You have enough trouble with your own horseshit.

(June 28, 2016 at 9:56 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You didn't answer my question.  Where in John does it say that Jesus ate the Passover meal?

I did answer your question, clearly you are not familiar enough with the text in John to sumize that 'Passover week' includes 7 Passover meals. As the other gospel accounts record Jesus taking part in the feast of unleavened bread this means it puts John's account at the end of passover week. which according to John places jesus arrest/trial on the day of perperation for the final Seder meal/passover feast on the following sabbath. Which is the reason for the Pharisees actions in John 18.

This means Jesus ate up to 6 passover meals.. as he was 6 days into the passover celebration when arrested.

Unless you are saying Jesus fasted for those 6 days... Which in that case the burden of proof has been shifted to you to show that he was fasting despite what the other gospel writers record.

Catholic Answers Wrote:According to The Navarre Study Bible, in Mark’s Gospel the Pharisees and Sadducees had a different way of celebrating feast days (51-52). The Pharisees were strict in their observance. If the fifteenth of Nisan fell on Friday, then that would be the day they celebrated the Passover. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more liberal and had no problem with moving a feast day in certain situations. This practice is analogous to our modern practice of moving some feast days to Sunday when they actually occur during the week (as is commonly practiced with the feast of the Epiphany). It could also be likened to the bishops declaring a holy day not obligatory because of the day upon which it happens to fall. For example, if a holy day falls on a Friday, the bishops will sometimes dispense Catholics from the obligation of attending Mass on that particular holy day for that year.

What does all of this mean? When Jesus actually celebrated the Passover, he did it in the traditional way of the Pharisees. That is what we see in the synoptic Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus kept the Passover strictly in accord with what Moses said in Ex. 12. However, when John wrote about Christ’s passion, he does not put the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper that the synoptic Gospel writers do. In fact, he does not mention the Lord’s Supper at all. He emphasizes the crucifixion. Only in passing, as he describes the activity of the day, does John mention that it was "the day of preparation." John was not speaking of the practice of Jesus and the apostles; he was speaking of the practice of the Sadducees, who had a large number of priests in their camp and great influence in the culture at the time. This fact explains why John calls Friday the "day of preparation" instead of Thursday. The Sadducees, who moved the Passover to Saturday, celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did.

How Do We Explain the Passover "Discrepancy"?

(June 22, 2016 at 2:04 am)Aractus Wrote:

(June 21, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It's a great video; anyone who watches/listens to this video cannot possibly have any confidence in "Biblical" Christianity:

No, there's hardly anything (at least in the first 4 or 5 minutes I just listened to) that Christians would need to be worried over. Ehrman 's hypotheses are well outside of mainstream scholarship, and much of what he focuses on in these rants are well outside his area of expertise. Bart's idea of systemic textual recension of the gospels is all but disproved by now. Yes the Pentateuch's systemic textual recension is (conversely) all but an accepted fact, but I don't think people understand that is based on textual scholarship of the OT writings, whereas NT textual scholarship (which is not Bart's area anyway) discredits this idea on its own - with only a handful of exceptions (Mark 16:9-20 as an example). It's certainly not systemic as is claimed by Bart, that fact alone is disproved by the second century manuscripts that exist of Luke and John. If they had been systemically modified where are the earlier editions? Or in absense of this, where is the textual scholarship that has identified the hand of multiple authors as is the case with the Pentateuch. If they haven't found it now, in Greek a relatively easy language to study being that it's a language still used today, and yet scholars can identify it in the Pentateuch written in Hebrew - which is one of the most difficult languages of the ancient world to decipher, then they aren't going to find it.

He's a scholar. He should be able to point to evidence for his claims, that should be no problem for him if his claims have a basis in modern scholarship. But wouldn't you know it, he never does. He behaves as if he's his own evidence: but he isn't qualified to make those assessments of Greek anyway! By that what I mean is that it's not his area of study, and he hasn't published any peer-review literature on THAT topic. He's published things to do with early Christianity and Paul, and on that he is qualified.

Here's a comment from another scholar (Dr Ben Witherington) which perfectly captures what I think about Bart:

"If only he could be equally honest and admit that in his scholarship he is trying now to deconstruct orthodox Christianity which he once embraced, rather than do 'value-neutral' text criticism. In my own view, he has attempted this deconstruction on the basis of very flimsy evidence-- textual variants which do not prove what he wants them to prove."

(June 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Irony? I mean are you really whining about one of the preeminent scholars not being well researched or having enough evidence when you can only be bothered to listen to 4-5 minutes of a video? Lol.

(June 28, 2016 at 9:57 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 9:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Stop telling jews how to be jews dripshit, you turd.  You have enough trouble with your own horseshit.

then READ THE LINKS I PROVIDE! They show you how to be OT Jews, as Christ would have been/observed. Which is clearly different than how bartie envisions being a jew.