No Errors In Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G

GreenNnice

Guest
#21
NO ERRORS IN BIBLE


Faith is in the heart, NOT in the details. Faith does not need proof. The proof is in an inner feeling that the bible calls the Holy Spirit of truth. The heart of faith settles the matter and the mind says "OK, then I don't really need the details either." These details, however, in collaboration with the written material of the early Christian leaders, tell a story of the four gospel writers, in complete collaboration with each other, composing a history (His story) of their hero, Jesus. Taken as a whole, the four gospels reveal a unique 'history' wherein Peter and Paul along with Mark and Luke were all brought together and residing in Rome at the same time that Matthew, now hiding out in Egypt, began writing his gospel to all Jews also living in Diaspora like himself, while John, disposed from Jerusalem as were his brethren, began having revelations, but unlike his brethren, John's Diaspora was on an isolated island prison.


Peter's disciple John Mark (Barnabas' nephew and Paul's earlier adversary) came to Rome at the bequest of Paul (2 Timothy 4:11) and while in Rome wrote his gospel about the factual journey of his mentor (Peter) who related to Mark 'to the best of his recollection' about his chronological walk with Jesus. The bible canon purports that it was Paul himself who wrote fourteen letters (including the disputed Hebrews), seven before he went to Rome and the last seven from Rome where he and his physician Luke wrote their gospel of Luke. While these four were collaborating in Rome Matthew was living in 'Diaspora' within a large Jewish settlement in Alexandria, Egypt. The Roman mail route between Rome and Egypt stopped at Patmos, the island prison holding John. Later when John was released he returned to Asia Minor to again shepherd his seven churches where his own personal copies of the three synoptic gospels, along with his personal copies of the letters of Paul, as well as his own book of Revelation, and his own newly written gospel were now also being copied and distributed amongst themselves. Notice that Jesus singled out John's Philadelphia Church for a special purpose.


Revelation 3:8
I know thy works: behold , I have set before thee an open door (COPY CENTER to the world), and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.


These ancient copies, originating from John's seven Asia Minor churches, were first collected by Erasmus in 1500AD and later identified as the 'Textus Receptus' manuscripts, becoming the English version of the King James Bible. The King James Bible tells its own unique historical stories (apart from all other bibles) within the SPECIFIC details of its ENGLISH WORDING. Mark's gospel is presented as the foundational rock with the actual facts laid down by Peter as he remembered them. Matthew and Luke, knowing these facts, had no reason to repeat them but instead often expanded upon them, building their own spiritual stories upon Mark's factual foundation. Numbers and details are changed on purpose to reveal deeper insight and spiritual depth to Mark's (Peter's) basic teachings. A wonderful example is Mark's worldly spiritual blind man (Mark 10:46+) who suddenly becomes in Matthew's story (Matthew 20:29+) two symbolic blind men representing both the 'worldly-pagans' ''blatantly shouting'' as well as His 'religious-disciples' ''furtively whispering''. Whereupon Luke (Luke 18:35+) and John (John 9:1+) then add their own unique, and blatantly contradictory, spiritual insights; Luke revealing that the healing of Jesus is 'timeless' and therefore, in his gospel, took place 'before' entering the city, while John insisted in his gospel that the miracle of spiritual insight is not only performed on the highways and byways leading to or coming from pagan cities like Jericho but must also be found in the very heart of the Jerusalem temple whenever and wherever Jesus ''passed by''.


Understood this way, there is never any error or controversy within or among the four gospels, each apparent deviation is neither a blatant contradiction nor a subtle inconsistency but rather a signal sign post to look deeper into an expanding story as each gospel writer adds their own spiritual insights onto Mark's original biography of Peter's walk with Jesus.


1Peter 2:2...2Peter 3:15
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:... even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


1Colossians 3:2...Hebrews 5:12
I (Paul) have fed you with (Peter's) milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able...For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of (Peter's) milk, and not of strong meat.

Whenever I parallel gospel stories I always begin with Mark's gospel, Peter's milk. Mark wrote only what Peter told him to write. Mark's Gospel was the first one written and holds the historical data as remembered by Peter. Luke came to Rome at Paul's request to help Peter pen his gospel to the Roman world and Paul assisted his doctor Luke in his writing of Luke's Gospel to the Greek world. They of course knew each others work. During this same time Matthew was living in Diaspora in a large Jewish settlement in Alexandria Egypt while John was exiled in the Isle of Patmos. ''All roads lead to Rome'' says the ancient slogan and all mail between Rome and Egypt sailed through Patmos where John both read and mailed back his own revelations to their common synoptic gospels. After being released from his exile in Patmos John returned to his seven churches is Asia Minor and wrote his own gospel. John's seven churches made copies of all gospels and letters of the early church. These copies later became known as the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James New Testament.


Matthew living in Egypt, and Luke living in Rome were fully aware that Mark/Peter's Gospel clearly stated that only one blind man was healed AFTER Jesus had passed Jericho, Did Matthew and Luke purposefully alter the foundational historical details of Mark's Gospel in order to reveal deeper spiritual truths? Were they in fact following Old Testament tradition? Is there perhaps another reason Matthew 'apparently' disagrees with Mark and records two blind men while Luke 'apparently' disagrees with both Mark and Matthew saying the healing happened BEFORE they passed Jericho. I believe these discrepancies follow an Old Testament technique and are not errors by scribes nor inconsistencies by the gospel authors but are rather layers of spiritual truth added upon Mark's original gospel. Following an Old Testament tradition Matthew's Gospel spiritually builds upon the foundational chronological story that is told in Mark. Luke the Greek doctor and writer of Acts builds his gospel from a common mix of Mark and Matthew. And John also wrote his own gospel in complete harmony (although at times anti-tonal) and with full knowledge of the synoptic events. Notice in the example below how John builds upon Luke's literal story, which now also invites a deeper spiritual under-standing growing from Luke's literal story.


Luke 5:6 (recording an event before the resurrection)
And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.


John 21:11 (recording an event after the resurrection)
Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.


Peter would not allow Mark's gospel to boast about the time Peter walked on water or about the time Jesus called Peter the rock. But Matthew was free to boast about his hero, the rock that walked on water. And therefore Matthew wrote in his gospel that Peter's faith was the very foundation of the church. Peter's faith was the rock upon which the church was to be built. Matthew's Gospel is not merely endorsing Peter but is also implying/insisting that we begin with Peter's foundational teachings given in Mark's Gospel. As babes in Christ we first read the broad strokes of Matthew and then we read the shorter gospel of Mark, which hammers home the basic basics of our faith. Once we babies finish Revelation we are ready for first grade. A little meat with our milk and we now start comparing gospels rather than just the verses within a gospel. When paralleling gospel stories I ALWAYS begin with Mark. Once Peter's basic foundational teaching is understood then the fun is allowing the Holy Spirit to reveal WHY Matthew, Luke, and John purposefully change certain specific/definite numbers and facts of which they were totally aware.

Continued...
The answer is 'no.' :)
 
I

in2it

Guest
#22
I am actually relieved that the different Gospels are not exactly alike. To me it makes more sense that no two people would see the same event exactly the same. If they were told being exactly the same i would be inclined to think they copy and pasted it.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#23
The four Gospel are eyewitness accounts as seen by four different people. The OT declares that every event be established by the account of two or three witnesses, God gave us four.
 
I

in2it

Guest
#24
The four Gospel are eyewitness accounts as seen by four different people. The OT declares that every event be established by the account of two or three witnesses, God gave us four.
Good Point!
 

Yahshua

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2013
2,758
715
113
#25
First of all cool avatar (lol)

It's quite easy, as there are literally hundreds of them. Page through any few chapters of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and you'll see what I mean. Here are a few examples which are probably not the "errors in translation" that RedTent suggests they are.

Judas hanged himself in Matthew, but in Acts he died by running headlong in a field while his intestines poured out.
For this situation, the narrative must be followed:

Matthew 27:3
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,


4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.


5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself
Ok so as far as this account, Judah hung himself. Judah is dead.

Acts 1:18
Now [Judah] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
In the next passage, Peter is summarizing what happened to Judah for his iniquity in fulfillment of prophecy. But note the account says "headlong falling" [πρηνὴς γενόμενος ], not "running headfirst". Then it says Judah "burst open" and his insides gushed out. Well it's perfectly understandable why this happened...Judah was dead.

What happens when a body dies - HowStuffWorks. Internal organs and tissues begin to liquefy, which cause the body to swell until the body bursts open...but this is after many days of decay. We don't witness dead bodies doing this today because of the embalming process, were we remove internal organs and fluids, and then pump the body with preserving chemicals. But regardless, neither accounts contradict each other.

It's plausible whatever tree Judah hung himself on couldn't support his weight for long, snapped, and he fell headlong into his field where his body remained.

We don't know how long it was between the time of Judah hanging himself and the apostles finding out about it, but however long it was, obviously it was long enough for Judah's body to have decayed so badly as to burst open.

The bible can't decide whether Abraham had only one son or several.
For this situation, the narrative must be followed:

God promised Abraham a son *through* his wife Sarah (even though she was barren), they just had to have faith...and it was through that "promised seed" that Abraham's heirs would be as numerous as the sands of the sea (i.e. lots of offspring).

Abraham & Sarah lost faith and agreed to take Hagar (Sarah's handmaiden) as a surrogate, birthing Ishmael. They reasoned this was how God probably meant his promise. This was not.

God reckoned with Abraham & Sarah on their presumptive actions and restated that he meant what he said, "Sarah would have a son, and through that promised son Abraham would have numerous offspring. Finally, after many years of proving they believed God Sarah had Isaac who is reckoned by God as the only begotten of Abraham. Sarah then says Hagar & Ishmael had to leave...but God had mercy on Hagar (who feared death in the wilderness) saying Ishmael would also grow to be a great nation. However, Ishmael still wasn't reckoned as from Abraham.

After Sarah died Abraham had more children from other wives but again those children weren't what God promised; they weren't of the will of God but of the will of Abraham (like Ishmael). So in God's eyes Abraham's only son was Isaac, the only one God promised him.

---

This goes to the character & nature of God. Being the ultimate authority, God doesn't yield to the will of man; he doesn't need to...because the way the situation will be is "his" way. This is why scripture says God is he "who brings life to the dead (i.e. 'he gives life to whom he wills to have it'), and calls those things which be not as though they were. [i.e. 'the reality of the situation is whatever he wills it to be regardless of what it appears to be']" (Romans 4:17).

For this situation, the narrative must be followed:

1 Samuel 31:1
Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa.


2 And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Melchishua, Saul's sons.
So the Philistines essentially won the battle, and were pursuing the remaining generals to kill them, Saul's army was wiped out and his enemy was gaining on him. As a side note, Saul was warned not to do battle against them because God wasn't on his side anymore, but he went out anyway under pride. As long as God was on his side Saul won EVERY battle unscathed, but Saul sinned against God so God stop protecting him. This explains how transgressing against God led to Saul's death (1 Chron 10:14).

Now, "would Saul have died had it not been for the Philistines?" The answer is "no". The Philistines *critically wounded* Saul.


3 And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore ["badly"] wounded of the archers.

4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
Saul was dying, so the Philistines were responsible for Saul's death...but Saul wouldn't give them the satisfaction of delivering the actual death blow. Yet his right hand man couldn't kill him. So saul fell on his sword.


5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.


6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
So the armor-bearer an the rest fall on their swords and all of them died the same day...but could they really be sure Saul was fully dead if the Philistines were fast on their heels? It's unlikely these men waited until Saul's took his very last breath before taking their own lives. There'd be no time for that if one's enemies are upon you.

2 Samuel 1:3
And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.


4 And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.


5 And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?


6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen [of the Philistines, in context] followed hard after him.
So at this point, Saul's already run through with his weapon (only this time it's a spear). So all the reasons for him leaning on his weapon are all plausible: He transgressed against God and no longer had protection, he being critically wounded by the Philistines, his men not wanting to kill him, but he wanted to die before the Philistines got to finish him.


7 And when [Saul] looked behind him[self], he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.
Saul can't move because he's impaled on his weapon, so all he can do is look behind him.


8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.


9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish [i.e. death throws] is come upon me, because my life is yet whole [i.e. still] in me.


10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
Saul said he was in agony because he was still alive and pray that the Amalekite man finish him off. So the only contradiction in this account was whether it was a sword or a spear that Saul fell on.

[Will try to explain the rest in my next post]
 

TheAristocat

Senior Member
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#26
Because of this need to make every differing account make sense, it becomes impossible to recognize error. To remove personal bias, let's discuss the Qur'an. There are a couple of verses in the Qur'an known as the "Satanic Verses". These verses tell Muslims that they can speak to any one of three demigods when praying, and were originally included in the Qur'an to appeal to Meccan pagans who worshipped several gods. But these verses clearly went against all of the others that painted Islam as a monotheism (single god religion), and so they were removed. How did the Muslims justify editing their holy text? They suggested that these verses had been dictated to Muhammad (the alleged author of the Qur'an) by Satan. Seriously.

Using this example, one can see the stretches of imagination that can be applied when one feels that one's holy text cannot be wrong. While you may laugh at the Muslims for actually reaching this far into absurdity to continue claiming that the Qur'an is perfect, don't you see the same absurd apologetics that Christians apply when faced with obvious contradictions? It's so easy to see this from the outside, but bias can blind from the inside.
Never heard that. Interesting. I'll have to look it up. On a similar note, I've heard good and bad apologetics. So the fact that it's apologetics doesn't mean it's bad. Depends on the quality of the argument. And there have been differing qualities of arguments for the same subject. In any debate there are often many answers to resolve one problem. That doesn't mean all answers are furtive attempts at subverting the truth; it just means the problem's obviously not without a solution. Which solution we should accept depends on which is the most logical.
 
Jul 27, 2011
1,622
89
0
#27
2Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for ministry. 2Timothy 4:13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when though comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. John and Mark came to Rome with Timothy at the bequest of Paul to help Peter write his gospel. Mark and Peter used Paul's parchments. That contained the testimony of many eye witnesses including the two men Jesus met on road to Emmaus after His resurrection. The final longer ending of Mark's gospel was transcribed from manuscripts incorporating those parchments containing the personal testimonies of witnesses who recorded their encounters with Jesus following His resurrection. There is no reason for Mark to try to make these testimonies fit into his own style of writing as he faithfully incorporated them into his gospel.
 
Jul 27, 2011
1,622
89
0
#28
sorry if the post i just posted looks like all one big clump, i tried separating but i'm not good with computer, after the word parchments verse 4;13. is not bible
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
7,860
1,566
113
#29
sorry if the post i just posted looks like all one big clump, i tried separating but i'm not good with computer, after the word parchments verse 4;13. is not bible
lol,me either,,,,,,i couldnt figure out why i typed different paragraphs and when i hit "post reply" it bunched it all together either. about a year ago another member(c.c.) explained to me to "write your paragraph,(hit enter twice) then the next paragraph and it works,i don't know why but it does.,,,if you only hit enter once it will bunch it together every time,,,,,
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
#30
Never heard that. Interesting. I'll have to look it up. On a similar note, I've heard good and bad apologetics. So the fact that it's apologetics doesn't mean it's bad. Depends on the quality of the argument. And there have been differing qualities of arguments for the same subject. In any debate there are often many answers to resolve one problem. That doesn't mean all answers are furtive attempts at subverting the truth; it just means the problem's obviously not without a solution. Which solution we should accept depends on which is the most logical.
Look at it this way. I see by that flag over your name that you are American, so you are probably familiar with the complexity of the American tax code. There are no shortage of people lamenting over how hard it is to understand one's taxes when "ignorance of the law is no excuse"... there are special tax courts set up to handle these laws because your average judge doesn't know enough about the laws to rule on them, and yet everyone from the President to the lowly janitor has to know how to properly file taxes. There are motives for tax codes being complicated (such as hiding loopholes for special interests), because the people who made these codes are not omniscient or perfect.

And yet, if you believe in a God that holds these qualities, then the bible shouldn't require so much apologetics. Your average book does not contain nearly as many inner contradictions, especially if it's a true story. The bible is allegedly written by a perfect writer, and meant for an audience of everyone, and yet it's so easy to two people to read the same passage and find different interpretations.

The reason that I compare the bible to the Qur'an is to remove bias. I often introduce situations such as the "Judas hanged himself/fell apart in a field" contradiction to Christians as something coming from the Qur'an, because I know that the average Christian has never even opened that book. I ask them if it's a good enough contradiction to confront a Muslim with, and I never get negative feedback... until I drop the bombshell on them that it's from the bible, not the Qur'an. And then suddenly I get an argument, when that same Christian felt no need to defend the passage when they thought it was from a holy book that they didn't think was "perfect".

So you are certainly right that not all apologetics are necessarily wrong, but I wasn't trying to make that point. My point was that, if you didn't feel a need to defend your specific holy book, you'd probably come to the same conclusion that I have.
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
#31
First of all cool avatar (lol)
Thanks.

I know a lot of effort went into that reply, but you're talking about a few contradictions among many... those were merely a few examples, picked by randomly clicking on books in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I've posted about contradictions several times now, and I try to mix it up by using different examples every time. A stronger example might have been to look at what day Jesus died (the day before or the day after Passover).

Why don't you believe that the Qur'an is the true word of God? Are you willing to give its contradictions the same analysis, the same benefit of the doubt? An easy way to test one's own bias is to look at how you approach information. If someone tells you something and you ask yourself "do I have to believe this?" then you are biased against it, and trying to find a way to avoid belief. If you ask yourself "can I believe this" then you are biased in favor of it, and are looking for permission to strengthen your belief. The rational approach is to ask "should I believe this", weighing both the evidence for and against. I'm not necessarily saying that you've come to an irrational, biased decision, but your analysis shows signs of it. For example, when you try to dismiss Abraham's other sons as "not sons from God's point-of-view", you don't seem to recognize that God is not the intended audience of this passage. Besides, you shouldn't have to add this clarification to God's word -- you and I could have both written this in a way that wouldn't even leave such an impression on the reader, such as you've done here. Why did God leave it up to you to make sense of what appears to be a mistake?
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#32
Because the Quran allows it followers to strap bombs to their chest and blow up people that don't believe as they do. Next question.
 

Yahshua

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2013
2,758
715
113
#33
Thanks.

I know a lot of effort went into that reply, but you're talking about a few contradictions among many... those were merely a few examples, picked by randomly clicking on books in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I've posted about contradictions several times now, and I try to mix it up by using different examples every time. A stronger example might have been to look at what day Jesus died (the day before or the day after Passover).

Why don't you believe that the Qur'an is the true word of God? Are you willing to give its contradictions the same analysis, the same benefit of the doubt? An easy way to test one's own bias is to look at how you approach information. If someone tells you something and you ask yourself "do I have to believe this?" then you are biased against it, and trying to find a way to avoid belief. If you ask yourself "can I believe this" then you are biased in favor of it, and are looking for permission to strengthen your belief. The rational approach is to ask "should I believe this", weighing both the evidence for and against. I'm not necessarily saying that you've come to an irrational, biased decision, but your analysis shows signs of it. For example, when you try to dismiss Abraham's other sons as "not sons from God's point-of-view", you don't seem to recognize that God is not the intended audience of this passage. Besides, you shouldn't have to add this clarification to God's word -- you and I could have both written this in a way that wouldn't even leave such an impression on the reader, such as you've done here. Why did God leave it up to you to make sense of what appears to be a mistake?
Sorry I had just spent a couple of hours answering this post in the quick reply but I accidentally hit the "back" button while switching between windows and I lost everything. :/ it's 4am so I'm going to get a little sleep before I give full answers. So heart-breaking lol.

The short answers to your questions are:

- He died *on* Passover (I'll show you from the passages referenced).

- I studied Islam, Hindu, Psionism, Buddhism, Torah, Bible, all with a singular purpose of discovering the truth because I originally believed that all works had truth in them. But the only one that had any harmony were the scriptures (based on original languages & culture). My reason for studying all of these was I was seeking a solution to the life equation (death). But specifically, I'll give you some references that stand out as to why the Qu'ran - given the same scrutiny and consideration - falls short in comparison to the Torah & NT. The surety of my answers come from a decade of analysis to the point where I finally had to concede to the truth of Scripture.

- You're right I shouldn't have to clarify the Abraham account...and not saying you're guilty of this (because you said you just picked those verses as examples from the skeptic site) but most people don't read anymore, ESPECIALLY not writings that are uninteresting. We actually have a real handicap in assimilating information from words (we're so used to audio & video). But I had a reason for getting through all the works I've studied (above).

- No, God isn't the intended audience but the main plot of the entire account (i.e. "the son God promised to Abraham") was established as far back as Genesis chapter 12, 10 long chapters before the referenced verse accused of contradiction. And if one misses the main plot, the rest of a story won't make any sense. So it's not my apology to dismiss Abraham's other sons. I was merely summarizing the plot of the text.
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
#34
- He died *on* Passover (I'll show you from the passages referenced).
I'm well-familiar with this passage, and there is overwhelming evidence that this is not so. This one I can well-defend.

Notice in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. Upon breaking the bread and drinking the wine, he imbued them with new meaning. Despite wanting to kill Jesus immediately, the "chief priests and elders" decided not to kill Jesus on "the feast day" because it might "cause a riot". And so they arrested him after the meal, and didn't kill him until the following day.

In the book of John, however, Jesus had a meal with his disciples "before the Passover festival". There is no speech about the bread or the wine, because it was not the Passover meal. Not only does the book of John say nothing about waiting until after Passover to arrest Jesus, but it makes it extremely clear that Passover was still continuing through Jesus' trial. In John (and John alone), Pilate speaks to Jesus, then goes back outside to the elders, then back inside to Jesus because the elders couldn't enter the palace in order to avoid "ceremonial uncleanness" because they wanted to eat "the passover meal". This is again clarified in John 19 after the trial that this happened "on the day of preparation for the passover".

As bible scholar Bart Ehrman suggested, the writer of John changed the time and day in order to "make Jesus the sacrificial lamb" by having him die at the same time that the lambs were sacrificed. But in order to do so, John's author had to change almost every detail of the account.
 

Yahshua

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2013
2,758
715
113
#35
I'm well-familiar with this passage, and there is overwhelming evidence that this is not so. This one I can well-defend.
Cool...then we can go into deeper detail about this one...

Notice in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. Upon breaking the bread and drinking the wine, he imbued them with new meaning. Despite wanting to kill Jesus immediately, the "chief priests and elders" decided not to kill Jesus on "the feast day" because it might "cause a riot". And so they arrested him after the meal, and didn't kill him until the following day.
To piece together this account, knowledge of the Hebrew holidays & culture must be understood. These accounts were written to people who were *already* familiar with the culture, so there was no need to explain what I'm about to point out. And even first century "gentiles" could follow because our reckoning of time wasn't changed until our calendar was changed by Rome:


1. Hebrew reckoning of a day is EXACTLY how Genesis 1 quotes it: "...the evening THEN the morning..." A new day begins with the evening, so for instance...

Saturday sunset = evening of the 1st day,
Sunday sunrise = morning of the 1st day,
Sunday sunset = evening of the 2nd day,
Monday sunrise = morning of the 2nd day,
Monday sunset = evening of the 3rd day,
Tuesday sunrise = morning of the 3rd day, etc...


2. As a culture, we know that the first century Jews honored the Feasts of the Lord. So if we go back to the instructions of Leviticus we find the schedule of events...

Leviticus 23:5-6
The Lord’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast
- The Passover for this feast is ALWAYS on the 14th of the 1st Month, the day before the Feast. On this "Preparation Day" the Passover (Pesach, which means "slaughted lamb") was prepared to be eaten as well as the unleavened bread for the next day's feast.

- The Official Festival (High Sabbath) is ALWAYS the following day on the 15th of the 1st month. On holidays no work is to be performed, not even cooking, so all "preparation" had to be completed on the previous day.


3. Mark 14:12-24
12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.

14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

15 And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.

16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
So it was the 14th of the first month; Passover. The disciples needed a place to prepare/slaughter the lamb. Christ tells them where to go and they all make ready the lamb. We're to assume that this is evening, since those are the instruction they've followed all their lives, but the next verse confirms it.

17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
- Passover evening = evening of the 14th...


4. Matthew 26:3-5
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.

5 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
Again, the festival of Unleavened Bread is on the 15th of the first month, not on the 14th...but Christ's last support is on the evening of the 14th, so let's continue with the narrative.

Mark 14:23-26, 32, 37-42
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

32 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.”

37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour?

39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.

41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”
Note it's still evening of the 14th and it's getting later and later. It's at this point when Christ is arrested. So like you say he's arrested after his meal. The rest of mark details Christ's nightly trial, and peter denying him JUST BEFORE THE ROOSTER CROWS.

Mark 14:72
Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

With the rooster crowing, we now know it's morning; the morning of the 14th.

- Passover / Preparation Day & Christ's Last Meal = evening of the 14th,
- Peter denies Christ = morning of the 14th...

5. Matthew 27:1
Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.
It's in the morning that the trial and execution of Christ commences; the morning of the 14th. Still Passover.

-----

In the book of John, however, Jesus had a meal with his disciples "before the Passover festival". There is no speech about the bread or the wine, because it was not the Passover meal. Not only does the book of John say nothing about waiting until after Passover to arrest Jesus, but it makes it extremely clear that Passover was still continuing through Jesus' trial. In John (and John alone), Pilate speaks to Jesus, then goes back outside to the elders, then back inside to Jesus because the elders couldn't enter the palace in order to avoid "ceremonial uncleanness" because they wanted to eat "the passover meal". This is again clarified in John 19 after the trial that this happened "on the day of preparation for the passover".

As bible scholar Bart Ehrman suggested, the writer of John changed the time and day in order to "make Jesus the sacrificial lamb" by having him die at the same time that the lambs were sacrificed. But in order to do so, John's author had to change almost every detail of the account.
6. John 13:1-2
It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.
Again, with what's established in Leviticus, the "festival" (i.e. Feast; High Sabbath; Day of Rest) is on the 15th of the first month. But the day "just before" that festival is the Passover day, the 14th of the first month; the day when the lamb is slaughtered. Note it's the same evening Judah betrays him just like in Mark's account. But omission of the details of Christ last meal hasn't changed the chronology. On that night (evening of the 14th)...

- Christ predicts his betrayal
- Christ predicts Peter's denial
- Judah goes off to betray Christ
- Christ prays alone (we just have more detail)
- Christ is arrested in the garden
- Christ is questioned
- Peter denies Christ and the Rooster Crows (now morning of the 14th)

Then it's the morning's trial...

7. 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.
Again, the Passover is prepared on that day; Passover Day (aka "Preparation Day"), and eaten during the festival on the next day (starting that very evening). Next, Christ is crucified...and he dies on the cross approx. the afternoon of the 14th (Passover)...But the Jews did not want the bodies of their people on the cross during the festival (Unleavened Bread) which was about to start (that evening, on the 15th).

8. John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Then Joseph and Nicodemus ask for the body to bury it BEFORE the festival/feast begins (that evening). These were the few remaining hours of the Preparation Day (i.e. Passover; Pesach; "slaughted lamb") before sunset.

John 19:38-42
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
- Passover / Preparation Day & Christ's Last Meal = evening of the 14th,
- Peter denies Christ = morning of the 14th...
- Christ is crucified & buried = afternoon of the 14th...
- Festival / Feast of Unleavened bread = evening of the 15th

Again the word "Passover" means "slaughtered lamb" which was prepared on the day for "slaughtering the lambs" (i.e. "Passover" day, also called Preparation Day). But the "slaughtered lamb" (i.e. "Passover") is eaten on the Feast of Unleavened Bread (because no work could be performed on that High Sabbath, not even cooking).