Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: John as the putative B.D.

Expand Messages
  • khs@picknowl.com.au
    ... Apostle cannot be the B.D. and/or the evangelist because John 18:28 contradicts it! If John the Apostle wrote or reported John 18:28, then Jesus could not
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 25, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In johannine_literature@y..., "Kevin O'Brien" <symeon@l...>
      wrote:
      > If Luke 22:8 was historically uttered by Jesus, then John the
      Apostle cannot be the B.D. and/or the evangelist because John
      18:28 contradicts it! If John the Apostle wrote or reported John
      18:28, then Jesus could not have uttered Luke 22:8. This brings
      in its turn the questions of Inerrancy and Inspiration. I opt
      definitely for John 18:28 as historical and Luke 22:15 as
      basically liturgical.
      >
      Dear Kevin,

      I may simply prove my ignorance here, but is there any reason
      why Jesus, knowing what his own predicament would be on the
      Friday (cf Jn 13:1), could not have oraganized an early Passover.
      There was no need for the gospel writers to mention that it was
      early, it was just that year's Passover. The reason it could not be
      on the correct day was obvious. Surely there were times when
      such shifts were necessary and, of all people, would not the One
      who was the true paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7) have had the
      authority to shift it on this occasion.

      Just a thought,

      Kym Smith
      Adelaide
      South Australia
    • khs@picknowl.com.au
      Dear Kevin O Brien, Further to my suggestion that Jesus may have had an early Passover, it is clear that there was some flexibility with the feast. In
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 26, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Kevin O'Brien,

        Further to my suggestion that Jesus may have had an 'early'
        Passover, it is clear that there was some flexibility with the feast.
        In Numbers 9:10-11 there was an allowance to celebrate the
        Passover in the second month, rather than the first. Israel
        actually did this (2 Chron 30); even many who were unclean
        were alowed to celebrate - despite the sancturary's rules for
        cleanness - because of Hezekiah's prayers on their behalf. More
        than that, however, the whole people decided to continue the
        Passover for another week - for which no special provision
        seems to have been made.

        It is true that Jesus was neither a month later, nor did he extend
        the feast, my point is only that there was some flexibility with it.
        There was surely some room to move for the Lamb who was the
        fulfilment of the type given in the Passover.

        I apologize that this post is not particularly Johannine, but for one
        who would keep open the debate that the Apostle John was the
        BD, it seems appropriate.

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.