Why telerion does not believe in Muffy.

Originally posted by Nemesio
That last post was in response to your other post.

To review: Sts Mark, Matthew, Luke -- Jesus ate the Passover with
his Disciples at the Last Supper. Thus the Passover was eaten BEFORE
Jesus was crucified.

St John has Jews (not in the Diaspora!) worried about entering the
praetorium for fear of defiling themselves so that they can eat that
Passov ...[text shortened]... s the Passover was eaten AFTER Jesus was
crucified.

One is wrong: which is it DJ?

Nemesio

What exactly do you want to know? Do you want to know whether it was legal to eat the passover on the Friday?

As far as I see it the gospels have it right. The passover meal consisted of the unleavend bread as well as the lamb.

None of the gospels specifically state the the lamb was eaten at the last supper. They all state that the 'bread' was eaten.

I seem to be missing your point.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I want to be certain I understand your position. Let me express to you what I believe you are saying.

The English translations of the Bible are not accurately translated. The mistranslation was done so on purpose.

No. I am NOT saying that. Please refer to the post I made back on page 1, second from the bottom. THAT is what I am saying, that a
proper English reflection (as I presented) directly states a chronological
contradiction in that Mary was present for the moving in one Gospel
but that it was already moved in another.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dj2becker
What exactly do you want to know? Do you want to know whether it was legal to eat the passover on the Friday?

As far as I see it the gospels have it right. The passover meal consisted of the unleavend bread as well as the lamb.

None of the gospels specifically state the the lamb was eaten at the last supper. They all state that the 'bread' was eaten.

I seem to be missing your point.

THE POINT IS (back on page 1):

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Passover was eaten BEFORE Jesus was
crucified, and in St John's Gospel it was eaten AFTER. No one said
anything about eating lambs.

Please refer to my post back there if you are still confused and please
address this literal contradiction.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dj2becker
What exactly do you want to know? Do you want to know whether it was legal to eat the passover on the Friday?

As far as I see it the gospels have it right. The passover meal consisted of the unleavend bread as well as the lamb.

None ...[text shortened]... hat the 'bread' was eaten.

I seem to be missing your point.

His point is simply the passover rules require that the meat must be eaten the first night or burnt to ashes before morning.

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?

14:13 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.

14:14 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? 14:15 And he will shew you a large
upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.

14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found
as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you,
One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

14:12 and 14:18

Originally posted by Nemesio
No. I am NOT saying that. Please refer to the post I made back on page 1, second from the bottom. THAT is what I am saying, that a
proper English reflection (as I presented) directly states a chronological
contradiction in that Mary was present for the moving in one Gospel
but that it was already moved in another.

Nemesio

Then I refer to my previous statement that we shall have to agree to disagree. The verse may be read the way you have outlined, it may also be read the way I have outlined. I recognize this, and I understand you probably will not entertain that my view is equally valid. So be it my friend. I respect your view, but to be honest I must confess that you offend me in stating it as irrefutable fact. I have given many credible sources for my view. I would humbly request you contemplate this when you decide to state your perception as fact, as you are calling a great many honest people in the world (including myself) liars who "twist" the facts.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

Originally posted by Omnislash
Then I refer to my previous statement that we shall have to agree to disagree. The verse may be read the way you have outlined, it may also be read the way I have outlined. I recognize this, and I understand you probably will not entertain that my view is equally valid.

Omni.

Your view necessarily entails the changing of verbs in the Greek. If you claim to be a
literalist (that is, that no historical fact is in error in the Bible), and all the while correcting
an ancient text, then, you are right: I will not entertain your view as valid.

The issue is: St Mark: Had been rolled, St Matthew: Was rolled. Context clearly indicates
that the former occurred before Mary (et alia?) arrived, while in the latter, the action
took place as she (they?) were arriving or afterwards.

This is a contradiction. Any attempt to harmonize it necessarily requires you to change
the Greek. Doing so would necessarily make a person not a literalist.

My position is clear and supported by the Greek. Either I have misunderstood you or you are
conceding that the Greek could be wrong. If the former, I apologize and I look forward to your
explanation. If the latter, then you are abandoning a literalist perspective for the sake of harmony
amongst Gospel stories.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Omni.

Your view necessarily entails the changing of verbs in the Greek. If you claim to be a
literalist (that is, that no historical fact is in error in the Bible), and all the while correcting
an ancient text, then, you are right: I will not entertain your view as valid.

The issue is: St Mark: Had been rolled, St Matthew: Was rolled. Context clear ...[text shortened]... abandoning a literalist perspective for the sake of harmony
amongst Gospel stories.

Nemesio

This might have been answered before - but is there a past continuous tense ("was being rolled"😉 in Greek?

Originally posted by Nemesio
THE POINT IS (back on page 1):

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Passover was eaten BEFORE Jesus was
crucified, and in St John's Gospel it was eaten AFTER. No one said
anything about eating lambs.

Please refer to my post back there if you are still confused and please
address this literal contradiction.

Nemesio

I see that no one has answered this without trying to change the essential
content of the Bible's actual words in Greek or making up imaginary holidays.

Nemesio

All this arguing about this little stuff seems completely pointless to me when put up against the fact that two completely different geneologies of Jesus are put forth in the Bible, thereby not only negating the idea that the Bible is a literal account, but that the original compilers of the Bible didn't intend it to be read as a literal account. And don't tell me that one of them is Joseph and one is of Mary. That's stretching farther than a teenager's bubblegum.

... --- ...