Location of pool of Bethesda confirmed.

The Pixie

Well-known member
GoJohn also has Jesus die on Passover versus in the synoptics Jesus dies the next day, after Passover. It is a radical departure for the most important alleged event on the planet and for an alleged Jewish apostle who was allegedly present and would have known the difference. It is obvious the Gospels are mythical stories.
There is a theory that the author of Mark believed it was the Thursday, the Sabbath he refers to is the Friday due to the Passover. The authors of Matthew and Luke just copied Mark, and assumed he meant the Saturday as the Sabbath. This would mean if Jesus was raised on the third day, that was the Saturday, which is good as that is the Sabbath. the empty tomb was then found the next day, after Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee (according to Mark). I have not looked at how the text works, but it seems reasonable.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
There is a theory that the author of Mark believed it was the Thursday, the Sabbath he refers to is the Friday due to the Passover. The authors of Matthew and Luke just copied Mark, and assumed he meant the Saturday as the Sabbath. This would mean if Jesus was raised on the third day, that was the Saturday, which is good as that is the Sabbath. the empty tomb was then found the next day, after Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee (according to Mark). I have not looked at how the text works, but it seems reasonable.
How could the day of his death not be certain? Either it happened on the day of Passover or it did not. No Jew who was present could have gotten it wrong, unless it did not happen or he was not present.

”On this point especially, there is such a radical discrepancy between the synoptical and Johannine narratives, that there is scarcely another exegetical result so firmly established as the utter futility of all attempts to interpret the one account into the other.” (Baur, “The Church History of the First Three Centuries”, pg. 174)

Per Baur the GoJohn was written with “deliberate purpose that it arranges its account of the death of Jesus in such a way to preclude the idea that his last meal was the Passover.” IOW, GoJohn wanted his audience to believe that Jesus died ON Passover, not after, contrary to the synoptic stories.

Baur attributes the change to religious politics. Moreover, he denies it could have been written by the alleged apostle John. My take is that if the leaders can play so loosely with the most important alleged historical event on the planet then what else are they playing loose with? IMO, it is a mythical tale with an esoteric meaning. Historical accuracy is irrelevant because its main purpose is to promote an abstract philosophical idea.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
How could the day of his death not be certain? Either it happened on the day of Passover or it did not. No Jew who was present could have gotten it wrong, unless it did not happen or he was not present.
None of the gospel writers were there.

”On this point especially, there is such a radical discrepancy between the synoptical and Johannine narratives, that there is scarcely another exegetical result so firmly established as the utter futility of all attempts to interpret the one account into the other.” (Baur, “The Church History of the First Three Centuries”, pg. 174)

Per Baur the GoJohn was written with “deliberate purpose that it arranges its account of the death of Jesus in such a way to preclude the idea that his last meal was the Passover.” IOW, GoJohn wanted his audience to believe that Jesus died ON Passover, not after, contrary to the synoptic stories.
That does not make sense. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying the day earlier, not later.

Baur attributes the change to religious politics. Moreover, he denies it could have been written by the alleged apostle John. My take is that if the leaders can play so loosely with the most important alleged historical event on the planet then what else are they playing loose with? IMO, it is a mythical tale with an esoteric meaning. Historical accuracy is irrelevant because its main purpose is to promote an abstract philosophical idea.
I am sure politics had a role in the writing of the gospels. According to Mark, the risen Jesus was first seen in Galilee, but Luke omits all sightings in Galilee altogether. In fact, what is the first sighting in Luke? We get a lengthy description of the second sighting on the Road to Emmaus, and a throw-away comment that actually Peter saw him first. Clearly Luke wanted to downplay Peter.

However, I do think the crucifixion actually happened, even if the accounts since then are mythology.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
None of the gospel writers were there.


That does not make sense. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying the day earlier, not later.
The GoJohn has Jesus dying on the day of Passover. Consequently his last meal is before Passover.
Now BEFORE the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world…during supper” (John 13:1)
1) Lords Supper BEFORE 2) Passover and Jesus’ death

In GoMark Jesus dies the day AFTER Passover. Consequently his last meal was on Passover.
when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Mark 14:12)
1) Lord’s Supper and Passover BEFORE 2) Jesus’ death

It can be a bit unclear depending upon one’s perspective, that is, before or after what event, the supper or his death. When closely studied It is a significant contradiction between GoJohn and the synoptics for what is alleged to be the most important day in the history of the universe. There is no way two versions of events could result unless none of them are true (making any historical accuracy irrelevant) or somebody was not there (making the testimony of GoJohn false).

I am sure politics had a role in the writing of the gospels. According to Mark, the risen Jesus was first seen in Galilee, but Luke omits all sightings in Galilee altogether. In fact, what is the first sighting in Luke? We get a lengthy description of the second sighting on the Road to Emmaus, and a throw-away comment that actually Peter saw him first. Clearly Luke wanted to downplay Peter.

However, I do think the crucifixion actually happened, even if the accounts since then are mythology.
Given that crucifixion was a common method of execution by Romans then your point is meaningless. You are essentially conceding that somebody was crucified by the Romans. Who cares?
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
The GoJohn has Jesus dying on the day of Passover. Consequently his last meal is before Passover.
Now BEFORE the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world…during supper” (John 13:1)
1) Lords Supper BEFORE 2) Passover and Jesus’ death

In GoMark Jesus dies the day AFTER Passover. Consequently his last meal was on Passover.
when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Mark 14:12)
1) Lord’s Supper and Passover BEFORE 2) Jesus’ death
Ah, right, my bad. John has Passover starting on Thursday, the synoptics on the Saturday.

It can be a bit unclear depending upon one’s perspective, that is, before or after what event, the supper or his death. When closely studied It is a significant contradiction between GoJohn and the synoptics for what is alleged to be the most important day in the history of the universe. There is no way two versions of events could result unless none of them are true (making any historical accuracy irrelevant) or somebody was not there (making the testimony of GoJohn false).
My guess, then - and it is just a guess - is the author of John moved the Passover to make Jesus the Paschal lamb.

Given that crucifixion was a common method of execution by Romans then your point is meaningless. You are essentially conceding that somebody was crucified by the Romans. Who cares?
That does not make it wrong.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Ah, right, my bad. John has Passover starting on Thursday, the synoptics on the Saturday.


My guess, then - and it is just a guess - is the author of John moved the Passover to make Jesus the Paschal lamb.
Bingo! That is exactly what Baur concluded. The practical point being that Judaism and Gentile Christianity were distinct religions. For if Jesus is the Paschal Lamb then the feast held by Jews is no longer necessary because Jesus fulfills it. Apparently, there was controversy whether Gentile Christians must become Jews in order to be saved, and consequently adhere to their religious festivals, OR whether Gentile Christians had everything they needed in Jesus alone. The debate crystallized in the second century CE over the Passover feast. Should we celebrate it with the Jews or should we NOT celebrate it with the Jews. The author of GoJohn (not the apostle John) was emphatically, No! We have everything we need in Jesus, who himself is the Paschal Lamb. I hate to be cynical but the change in recorded history of Christ’s alleged death was due to religious politics.

That does not make it wrong.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Bingo! That is exactly what Baur concluded. The practical point being that Judaism and Gentile Christianity were distinct religions. For if Jesus is the Paschal Lamb then the feast held by Jews is no longer necessary because Jesus fulfills it. Apparently, there was controversy whether Gentile Christians must become Jews in order to be saved, and consequently adhere to their religious festivals, OR whether Gentile Christians had everything they needed in Jesus alone. The debate crystallized in the second century CE over the Passover feast. Should we celebrate it with the Jews or should we NOT celebrate it with the Jews. The author of GoJohn (not the apostle John) was emphatically, No! We have everything we need in Jesus, who himself is the Paschal Lamb. I hate to be cynical but the change in recorded history of Christ’s alleged death was due to religious politics.
They became different religion - Paul was still a Jew, with very Jewish beliefs, even if he was selling those beliefs to the gentiles. In AD 50 Christianity was still a Jewish sect. It diverged over the first fifty or so years, in part because Christians wanted to dissociate themselves from Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

We can read in Paul's letters there was controversy whether Gentile Christians must become Jews in order to be saved, and more specifically whether they needed to be circumcised; it was rather earlier than you suggest. Paul argued no, the original disciples said yes.

I think by the start of the second century they were too separate to consider having festivals together; Christians were already banned from Synagogues by then. However, I do agree that Jesus as the Paschal lamb is a way to rationalise no longer celebrating Passover; this is part of the supposed new covenant which means Christians can ignore any OT laws they like, despite Jesus explicitly saying that his coming did not change one bit.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
They became different religion - Paul was still a Jew, with very Jewish beliefs, even if he was selling those beliefs to the gentiles. In AD 50 Christianity was still a Jewish sect. It diverged over the first fifty or so years, in part because Christians wanted to dissociate themselves from Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

We can read in Paul's letters there was controversy whether Gentile Christians must become Jews in order to be saved, and more specifically whether they needed to be circumcised; it was rather earlier than you suggest. Paul argued no, the original disciples said yes.

I think by the start of the second century they were too separate to consider having festivals together; Christians were already banned from Synagogues by then. However, I do agree that Jesus as the Paschal lamb is a way to rationalise no longer celebrating Passover; this is part of the supposed new covenant which means Christians can ignore any OT laws they like, despite Jesus explicitly saying that his coming did not change one bit.
Right, but I think a new development occurred in the second century which opened the door for Judaizing Christians to make inroads to Gentile Christians. That is the split between Gentile proto-orthodox and Gentile gnostics. For the first time Gentile christians opposed gentile christians.

In the second century some Gentile Christians likely turned to Judaizing Christians for advice in combating Paul’s followers, most especially, Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament. It is interesting that Justin’s defense of christianity around 150 CE never mentions Paul, the apostle. Was he considered tainted because his epistles were used by gnostic Christians? Possibly. Therefore, who better to advise the proto-orthodox in their battle with followers of Paul than the Judaizing Christians who opposed Paul for the last 70 years? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Anyways, the prto-orthodox probably listened to Judaizing Christians as long as it helped them against the other Gentile Christians, namely, Marcion, but later (180 CE) cut them loose when they no longer needed the Judaizing Christians.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Right, but I think a new development occurred in the second century which opened the door for Judaizing Christians to make inroads to Gentile Christians. That is the split between Gentile proto-orthodox and Gentile gnostics. For the first time Gentile christians opposed gentile christians.

In the second century some Gentile Christians likely turned to Judaizing Christians for advice in combating Paul’s followers, most especially, Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament. It is interesting that Justin’s defense of christianity around 150 CE never mentions Paul, the apostle. Was he considered tainted because his epistles were used by gnostic Christians? Possibly. Therefore, who better to advise the proto-orthodox in their battle with followers of Paul than the Judaizing Christians who opposed Paul for the last 70 years? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Anyways, the prto-orthodox probably listened to Judaizing Christians as long as it helped them against the other Gentile Christians, namely, Marcion, but later (180 CE) cut them loose when they no longer needed the Judaizing Christians.
In the second century, pretty much all Christians were gentiles (the Ebionites were at least one exception, but by that point so different to mainstream Christianity it is debatable whether we can even label them Christians). As such pretty much all of the were followers of Paul's church. There were plenty of factions and different beliefs, but I do not think any significant number were saying the Jewish laws needed to be observed - that was resolved in the first century as far as I can see.

Marcion did reject the OT, but his theory was quite different - more like gnostic - so is a complex subject.

I have not heard of Paul's letters being considered too gnostic - but that was the case for the Gospel of John, which almost failed to make the canon for that reason. It is possible Justin does not mention them because he did not consider them canon (in an informal sense), they were just internal letters in the church at that point.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
In the second century, pretty much all Christians were gentiles (the Ebionites were at least one exception, but by that point so different to mainstream Christianity it is debatable whether we can even label them Christians).
there was no ”mainstream christianity” in the second century, just a heterogenous group of people following a Messianic figure that they had never met. Some thought the Gospels were historical events (proto-orthodox), some thought they were esoteric stories (gnostics), and some rejected them all together (ebionites).

I imagine the Ebionites may have been the latter who traced their origins and their prophet to the Essenes so in their minds they were the original Jewish Christians. Maybe they never forgave Paul for rejecting Jewish particularism but instead remained loyal to their prophet, namely, the Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BC.

I also suspect a hidden unknown group of Christians who knew the Gospels were about Paul but chose to keep it a secret for various reasons. It would have been their most closely guarded secret. I am still trying to sort out who they were, who they associated with, or whether their secret died out with them by the second century.

Maybe they associated with the gnostics giving them confidence to allegorize the Gospels and they could not divulge their secret lest they be accused as Jewish trouble makers by the Romans. Holding a sun god (similar to the Roman Mithras) as their leader was much safer than a Jewish preacher executed by Nero. In that way, the Gospel stories served as a shield to accusations of being too Jewish who in the second century were emabarking on their third war with the Romans.
As such pretty much all of the were followers of Paul's church. There were plenty of factions and different beliefs, but I do not think any significant number were saying the Jewish laws needed to be observed - that was resolved in the first century as far as I can see.

Marcion did reject the OT, but his theory was quite different - more like gnostic - so is a complex subject.

I have not heard of Paul's letters being considered too gnostic - but that was the case for the Gospel of John, which almost failed to make the canon for that reason. It is possible Justin does not mention them because he did not consider them canon (in an informal sense), they were just internal letters in the church at that point.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
Gaslighting and word games.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
GoJohn also has Jesus die on Passover versus in the synoptics Jesus dies the next day, after Passover. It is a radical departure for the most important alleged event on the planet and for an alleged Jewish apostle who was allegedly present and would have known the difference. It is obvious the Gospels are mythical stories.
More of your mythologies. We have no reason to believe you.
God doesn't believe your imaginations.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
Meaningless rhetoric.
 
Top