Jesus Christ! Is this a contradiction? (page 2)

Ianone

Observador, first off, please refrain from taking Christ's name in vain. I cant beleive they actually let you say that on here. It is highly offensive.

xjw_b12

Ianone. I can't believe they allow YOU on here.

whyamihere

In the Bible its like you can do one thing and it is right and wrong!

Just don't kill anyone, and be nice to old People you will be fine!

Brooke

Actually R.M. Price pointed me to Lüling's article some time ago. I found it interesting, I'm not sure I can say more. When you inventory the background material for the "Jesus traditions" (Jewish and Hellenistic myths and legends, OT-like narratives, Cynic-like sayings etc.), the political stuff (as recently highlighted by Theissen, Meier, or more radically Maccoby and Eisenman) is often underestimated. Reducing the Jesus character to this would be missing the point imo, but it is certainly part of the Gospels picture, especially in the Passion narratives. After all, the best parallels in Josephus (e.g. the triumphant entry in Jerusalem and subsequent cleansing of the temple by Simon by Giora) also belong to the political sphere.

Alwayshere

Whyamihere, my thoughts exactly.

undercover

Observador, first off, please refrain from taking Christ's name in vain. I cant beleive they actually let you say that on here. It is highly offensive.

Good God! Are you serious? Why wouldn't they let that be said here? That's just Goddamn ridiculas. Jesus, people sure are sensitive.

A Paduan

It's an identifier, but not a pin pointer - ie. it'll be one of us - displays the type of the betrayal

observador

"I cant beleive they actually let you say that on here. It is highly offensive."

What is really offensive is all these conspiratory line you keep pushing on people here! You should be glad you're not out yet.

Observador.

observador

Paduan,
I hear what you say, but there simply are so many of these type of contradictions that it makes hard to believe that the Bible is what is purpoted to be.

Observador.

hmike

I think Narkissos and Paduan have the right idea. Both Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus identifies the betrayer as "the one who dips his hand into the bowl with me." This was to emphasize that the betrayer was one of their select group and present for this meal. This statement does not require that Jesus and Judas dipped their hands into the bowl simultaneously, that Jesus waited for Judas to dip and then joined him, or that Judas was compelled against his will to dip at the same time as Jesus. It just means they both shared that same bowl during the meal. (In Matthew's account, Jesus tells Judas he is aware of the planned betrayal.)

The statements in Matthew/Mark and John need not be contradictory. They are not mutually exclusive. They could just be two separate statements, one finding its way into the Matthew/Mark account, the other into John's account. Interesting to note that in spite of what happened here, the other disciples didn't have a clue as to what Judas was up to.

Jesus Christ! Is this a contradiction?

Share this