John puts the Last Supper on Nisan 13, so that Jesus would be crucified at the same moment that paschal lamb is sacrificed for Passover. This scheme is theological by suggesting that Jesus is the real paschal lamb.
WAS THE LAST SUPPER REALLY AT PASSOVER?
by Mary 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Leolaia
(duplicate post)
-
garybuss
142
From the book:
God, Jews, and History
By, Max Dimont
MOSES, CHRIST, AND CAESAR
Another point which New Testament readers forget, or are not aware of, is that it was the Prophets who began the reformation of the Temple cult, eight hundred years before Jesus. In the days of Jesus there existed, side by side, two Judaisms, one the Judaism of temple and sacrifice, the other the Judaism of synagogue and prayer, just as two Christianities exist side by side today, one Catholic, the other Protestant. Jesus, then, was not the first reformer of the Temple cult. When he appeared on the scene, the reforms instituted by the Prophets were already doing away with the entire Temple cult itself. In this dying Temple cult, Jesus aimed to do away with two practices, the selling of sacrificial animals and the handling of money on Temple grounds.
It was a long-established custom in those days to sell sacrificial doves and pigeons outside the Temple, just as it is the custom to sell candles and crosses inside churches and cathedrals today. As Jewish pilgrims came from many lands to offer their sacrifices in the Temple, it was also a custom for vendors to make change from one currency to another as a service to these pilgrims. Some Sunday-school textbooks hint that- there was gambling involved, an understandable elaboration, but this theory is not supported by any of the four Gospels. Jesus objected, not to the making of change, but to the handling of money on Temple grounds, just as he might object to the custom of handling money inside churches and cathedrals today when collection plates or baskets are passed to worshipers.*
When Jesus arrived at the Temple, smashing the tables of the vendors and driving the money-changers down the Temple stairs, those Jews who wanted these services were as out- raged as Christians would be today if someone were to storm into their churches during Easter services, smash the candles and crosses offered for sale, and drive the gentlemen passing the collection plates down the church steps. Does anyone doubt that such an intruder would be arrested at the orders of the priest or minister? Yet the Jews did not arrest Jesus at this time. They wanted no trouble with the Romans and hoped the incident would be forgotten.
But this hope was not to be realized. News of the commotion in the Temple tensed the Romans. Was this the event that would set off a riot? An uprising? A rebellion? Responsible Jewish citizens, fully aware of the danger of the slaughter, rapine, and torture which would take place if the Roman legions were unleashed, might have felt that Jesus should be restrained until after Passover, until the excitement had died, until the legionnaires' had departed and the semisiege lifted. Cautiously they waited to see what would happen. The adherents of Jesus were now for the first time beginning to speak of him openly as "king of the Jews" and as "the messiah," further arousing the suspicions of the Romans. The Jews, according to the Gospels, arrested Jesus on the third day after his appearance at the Temple.
Twelve eventful hours in the history of mankind now took place. The only accounts we have of the twelve hours which followed the arrest of Jesus are contained in the Four Gospels, which were written forty to ninety years after the event itself. Their many contradictions aside, the Gospel accounts say essentially this: Jesus was arrested at night by orders of the Sanhedrin, the highest court in the land, and condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for the crime of blasphemy, or religious corruption, at the palace of the High Priest with the aid of suborned witnesses. The Gospel versions then go on to relate that Pontius Pilate, who had to approve the sentence, did so most reluctantly because he was afraid of the Jewish multitude.
Any person familiar with Jewish judicial procedure in Biblical times will find it difficult to take the Gospel accounts literally. According to Jewish law at that time, no one could be arrested at night. It was illegal to hold court proceedings after sundown on the eve or the day of the Sabbath or a festival. The Great Sanhedrin could convene only in the Chamber of Hewn Stones, never in the palace of a High Priest or in any other dwelling. Nor could the Sanhedrin initiate an arrest. No one could be tried before the Sanhedrin unless two witnesses had first sworn out charges against him. As there was no prosecuting attorney, the accusing witnesses had to state the nature of the offense to the court in the presence of the accused, who had the right to call witnesses in his own behalf. The court then examined and cross-examined the accused, the accusers, and the defense witnesses. The Talmud, in fact, decreed that even as a condemned man was led to his place of execution, a herald had to precede him crying out to all: "So and so, the son of so and so is going forth to be executed because he has committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his [accusing] witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it."* These facts make it very unlikely that a Jewish High Court would defy every law in its own code and act contrary to time-honored custom. Such action by the august body of the Sanhedrin is as inconceivable as the United States Supreme Court's seizing a man at night - searching for "witnesses" during the night to accuse him of crime condemn him to death without a trial, and clamor or immediate execution all within the space of twelve hours.
A historian familiar with the cruelty and rapacity of Pontius Pilate will find it equally difficult to accept the portrayal of Pilate as a tender and merciful judge, zealous for the welfare of one Jew. In fact, Pilate's cruelty and rapacity became so notorious that the Emperor Tiberius had to remove him because he brought dishonor to Rome. It demands too much credulity to think that this Pontius Pilate, a Roman general in command of many legions surrounding the city, was cowed by a Jewish "multitude" armed with nothing more fearful than phylacteries (small amulets wrapped around one arm during prayer).
Does it not seem more probable that Jesus was arrested by the Jews to protect him from the Romans (who never had any compunction about crucifying one Jew more or less),that this protective arrest was to no avail, and that the Romans demanded that the Jews turn Jesus over to them for punishment? There is evidence in the Gospels themselves for such a theory. According to the Gospels, it was toe Roman soldiers who scourged and tortured the body of Jesus.
*The Talmud, Sanhedrin, Mishna 43 a.
**As one wit expressed it: "Some Christian scholars do not believe Jesus existed, but they are all convinced that the Jews killed him." -
Mary
Very interesting Garybuss...............there are other things in the scriptures that don't quite jive either. According to the scriptures, the Romans "had a custom" of releasing a condemned prisoner to the Jews each year, yet there is absolutely no historical evidence that the Romans ever did such a thing. This would be paramount to Iran being nice enough to release a condemned Jewish prisoner each year-----that ain't never goin' to happen and I've often wondered if the writer, wanting to avoid incurring more wrath from Rome, decided to shift the blame away from Rome, and instead put the entire oneous of Jesus' betrayal, trial and execution on to the Jews as a whole...........
-
New Worldly Translation
IMO the whole story of the last supper is apocryphal. Apart from the points already put forward against the story there were pagan cults which had been around for hundreds of years which memorialised a saviour son of God's death by eating bread for the flesh and wine for the blood. This and many other gospel stories were probably added to make them more palatable to the largely pagan Roman world as it was slowly turned toward christianity.
As has been mentioned the freeing of a prisoner by the Roman authorities is totally untrue. It's thought that the story originally was that the Jewish crowds wanted Jesus himself freed. This was later changed to two seperate people - Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas. The fact is Barabbas isn't a proper name and was never used as such. The derivation is of it is Son of the Father. The text was changed by christians to make it better accepted by the Roman authorities as Pilate comes out of it in a fairly good light in contrast to the Jews who are portrayed as a blood thirsty mob.
Sickoflies, I'd like to know which Roman documents prove that Jesus was killed on Nisan 14. As far as I knew there are no contemporary documents from that time that even acknowledge Jesus existence. The first mention of a Jesus Christ apart from the gospels is by Josephus.
-
Tea4Two
IMO the whole story of the last supper is apocryphal. Apart from the points already put forward against the story there were pagan cults which had been around for hundreds of years which memorialised a saviour son of God's death by eating bread for the flesh and wine for the blood. This and many other gospel stories were probably added to make them more palatable to the largely pagan Roman world as it was slowly turned toward christianity.
I am listening.....can you relate one these stories for me please
-
RubaDub
We all know that the Passover was to commemorate the Exodus out of Egypt in which God instructs the Israelites to sacrifice a lamb on Nissan 14th before sunset. Yet there is no mention of Jesus and his disciples eating a sacrificial lamb or eating the bitter herbs at the Last Supper----there's only bread and wine there.
Mary, it is obvious that the full meal was eaten later in the evening.
The bread and wine represent something to begin the evening ... what is now referred to as happy hour.
Rub a Dub
-
badboy
wHAT Roman documents support the Crucifixation?