What you want to know about Christ.

Was Jesus crucified before Passover or after Passover?

quote:

---

I believe in the Bible because of what I have been taught and what I have experienced, but most of all because the Bible itself says it is true.

---

You believe the Bible is true becasue the Bible itself says it is true?Can you see the problem with the logic of this?

quote:

---

I don't know that much about Jewish festivals, but Jesus was crucified on the Friday, after the feast of Unleavened Bread. I'm not sure if that was the end of the Passover, or if it went on for longer after that, but he was definitely crucified during or after the Passover.

---

The point is, the bible says that it happened both before and after.According to John, Jesus was not crucified after Passover, but the day before. Mark places the crucifiction after Passover.Jn.19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.Mark 14:12
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?Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I am sure you believe things that you have not seen with your own eyes, such as the fact the world is round, the earth is so big, and the sun is so big. (I'm not sure exactly). There are thousands of examples of faith, and I believe that, in many cases, the Bible can be, and is proven.
'Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.'(I can't remember the reference, but its in the Bible).

---

The thing is, there is lots of physical evidence that the Earth is a flattened sphere, that the sun is a star. I don't have to believe based upon somebody's word for it, I can do the calculations and measurements myself, and if I really wanted to, I could go to school to become a cosmologist to become an expert on the sun or planets.Scientists and science-minded people of many different religious faiths and also of no faith at all can all agree upon the math, physics, and the physical evidence that exists for determining the sphereical shape of the Earth, and the size of the sun, etc. There is no "belief" of a religious sort needed to accept such things.Do not equate this trust in empiricism with religious belief, because they are not the same at all.Religious faith is belief without evidence.

quote:

---

Yes I can see how some people don't get this. I have talked quite a bit about this in the thread 'The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made'. Please read what I say in that, then ask me again if you have further queries.

---

Nothing that I saw in that other thread addresses my point.Over there, you were attempting to argue that because all the books of the bible agree, they must be true. This idea was easily shot down by your opponents, whom you eventually stopped responding to.What you have said here is that you believe the bible to be the truth because the bible says so. In fact, you say that this is the most important reason you believe it is true.The Bahavigad Gita must be true, because it says so right inside!

quote:

---

and this is why eyewitness testimony is bupkis.

---

That's assuming the authors actually witnessed the events. John, for example, was written something like 300 years later, IIRC.It's also assuming that the events in question actually happened.It is also great evidence that myth changes as the needs of the religion change.John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. All the talk of a literal, in-the-flesh, very, very soon Second Coming present in the others is downplayed in John. Jesus's gift to us was changed into a spiritual, symbolic rebirth rather than the military victory of the rest of the Gospels.That's why the timing of the crucifiction was changed. Jesus becomes the symbolic "sacrificial Passover lamb" for all of humanity.

quote:

---

i think that's a reach.

---

How so?It's a fairly mainstream scholarly analysis.

quote:

---

well seeing as john is actually contemporary to the other gospels, it demonstrates at worst a personal interpretation but most likely a flawed "memory," but certainly doesn't represent some massive conspiracy to make up new books to fit a couple hundred years' religious shift.

---

I never mentioned a "massive conspiracy", brenna.Look, just read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then read John.The differences are marked, and I very much doubt that the ways in which it is different are "mistakes" and I similarly doubt that the differences are just a single person's interpretation.John, as others have mentioned, reflects a Gnostic influence.

quote:

---

you suggested the story was deliberately changed (presumably by the "CHURCH") to reflect contemporary tradition.

---

It was, but since I never mentioned THE CHURCH, I don't know why you thought I was referring to it.

quote:

---

but, as it was written within the same time period as the others, this is not likely. it is more likely the work of a signle author or small group of people with differing spiritual education.

---

What's the difference if THE CHURCH changed it or a contemporary individual or group?The changes are the changes.

quote:

---

her proposal was that as the church evolved over the course of 300 years, they just developed new books to fit their needs.

---

No, that's not what I said.

To be fair, I originally did mention 300 years, but was corrected later.

quote:

---

You did say that the myth changes as the need changes, so brenna got that part right.

---

Sure.

quote:

---

You did not mention the "church", so who do you think implimented the change in the timing of the crucifiction? Just John?

---

John, and whatever early sect he was a part of and most influenced by. The book shows a strong Gnostic influence, as others have pointed out, which the other three Gospels don't.

quote:

---

It certainly sounds like you saying that new books were developed to fit the needs. Is your only contention with the word "church"? Maybe brenna meant something other than what you are defining as the "church".

---

When brenna mentioned "the church", she wrote, "THE CHURCH", which I took to mean Roman Catholicism. That wasn't what I was referring to at all.All I wanted to say was that, as time went on after Jesus' death, John seems to change Jesus's crucifiction and ressurection to be a symbolic sacrifice for the spiritual salvation of all of humankind. That's why he shifts the timing of the Last Supper and the crucifiction, so Jesus can be the "Passover Lamb".The other books read far more like straight histories, and those other books have Jesus coming back from the dead as a military leader who would deliver the Israelites from their oppressive masters. The "Kingdom on Earth". John is much more concerned with a "spiritual kingdom" and downplays the whole military leader thing.Why would John be written in this way if the needs of the religion weren't changing. "100 years later and Jesus still hasn't returned like he said, so maybe he wasn't talking about a literal return, and the "kingdom" isn't on Earth, but in Heaven?" Edited by nator, : No reason given.

ObeeKaybee.

quote:

---

If you believe in evolution, you must believe in some sort of miracles?

---

Not at all.

quote:

---

How could chemicals randomly arrange themselves into a molecule,

---

Er, chemicals are made of molecules, so I don't really know what point you hoped to make here.

quote:

---

and then a cell?

---

The cell didn't just "randomly" arrange itself. There are many known intermediate steps between "molecule" and "cell".This may come as a shock to you, but just because you, personally, have no idea how something in nature could have occurred doesn't mean that nobody else does.Your personal incredulity is irrelevant to the validity of the ToE.I strongly suggest that you spend some time in the science forums to improve your knowledge of Biological Evolution.

quote:

---

Miraculous, though not true if you ask me. My point is that you have to believe in a miracle somewhere. Like faith, it's unavoidable.

---

No, I really don't have to believe in any such thing.Please stop trying to raise your arbitrary, culturally-based religious faith up to the same level as emperical evidence-based acceptance of facts.I must say that if your goal is starting this thread was to evangelize and draw people closer to your faith, displaying the typical religious rejection and ignorance of science and evolution will run counter to your aims.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I maintain that the emotional passion concerning this man by others..be it intense love or intense hatred....is itself a valid assertion for His existence or at the very least the power of His legend.

---

The power of legend and myth is far greater than that of actual history.