Calling all Law Keepers.

[Richard_oti]

When you admit to 4 cups of wine at the seder/Passover that I have referenced more than once, we might be able to have a discussion.

Well then, until you realize that Jesus could not have eaten the Passover and also been the Passover, your point is moot from my perspective.

You say my premise is flawed but you don't explain why.

Your opening statement was incorrect. And again, you did nothing to address my question to you. When you address it, and know the answer, you shall also realize that your "4 cups" proves nothing.

It's because you deny the 4 cups of wine that can be found on any Jewish site. You are not the "Jewish expert" you pretend to be. I generally don't invest a lot of time with people with selective blindness, nor with Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists, your challenges look familiar.

Again, you have yet to realize that Jesus could not have both eaten the Passover and been the Passover. So whether the "4th cup" can be found on any Jewish website matters not.

 

[Richard_oti]

ummm. Truth. I can feel it in my being when I hear it.

Richard did you notice this <snip>;
"""kepha31 said: The Last Supper (seder/Passover) was on a Thursday, He died on Friday"""

Matt 12:38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this point.

Yes, I did notice it. As for my thoughts; Short version:


Wednesday: 14th of Aviv ; Crucifixion

By the time Joseph of Arimathaea goes to Pilate, gets permission, buys new linen, returns, removes the body from the cross, transports the body, wraps the body, and then places the body in the tomb (cf Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, John 19:38), it is very near sunset.

Thursday: 15th of Aviv; "High Shabat" (cf John 19:31) ; First day of "Unleavened Bread" ; night and day in "heart of the earth" ; day 1

Friday: 16th of Aviv; night and day in the "heart of the earth"; day 2

Shabat: 17th of Aviv; night and day in the "heart of the earth"; day 3

Resurrection: In all probability, somewhere around sunset.

Monday: First day of the week while it was still dark, tomb found empty.


Long version:

Sunset, the 13th of Aviv has drawn to a close and the 14th begins (cf Matt 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-13, John 13:1-2)

Matthew is vague, and gives us no real idea. Mark and Luke basically: On the first day of unleaven bread, when/had/must be sacrificed the passover lamb...

John however is much different: 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast... 2 The evening meal was being served...

Per haTorah the 14th of Aviv is the day on which the Passover was/is to be slaughtered (cf Exodus 12:6, Lev. 23:5, Num 9:3, Num 28:16).


Date/Time: 14th of Aviv, the evening/night hours prior to the daylight hours of the 14th.

When evening (opsias; late, nightfall) came, (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, cf/cp John 13:2) Jesus and his disciples eat *supper*.

John 13:2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.

Jesus predicts Peter's denial. Jesus goes out to pray (Matthew 26:36, Mark 14:32, Luke 22:39)

Judas brings the soldiers carrying torches (Matt 26:47, Mark 14:43, Luke 22:47, John 18:3)

Jesus led away, brought first before Annas (John 18:13) then sent before Caiaphas the high priest (Matthew 26:57, John 18:24)

Peter denies Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62, John 18:25-27)

Rooster crows: 14th of Aviv, begin daylight hours.

Early in the morning (Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, Luke 22:66, John 18:28) Jesus led before Roman Governer Pilate (Matthew 27:2, Mark 15:1, Luke 23:1, John 18:28).

Important Note: In John 18:28 they wanted to be able to eat the Passover, here with John 13:1-2 we see IMO that the supper was not the Passover seder.

Pilate sends the Messiah before Herod (Luke 23:7).

Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate (Luke 23:11).

John 18:39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of Passover.

Pilate brings Jesus before the crowd, crowd cries out crucify him, releases Barabbas, Pilate surrenders Jesus to their will (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:25, John 19:16).

John 19:14 It was the day of preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews (cp Luke 23:54).

John 19:16 Pilate hands Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Mark 15:25 It was the third hour when they crucified him.

Sixth hour thru ninth hour, darkness over the land (Matthew 27:45-46, Mark 15:33-34, Luke 23:44).

Ninth hour on the 14th of Aviv (Wednesday), Jesus gives up his spirit (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:34).

Joseph requests body as the evening approaches (Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:42, John 19:38) and the "high shabat" (first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread) was about to begin (Luke 23:50-54, cf John 19:31). The 1st day of "Unleavened"; a shabat shabaton and mele'ket `avodah lo'.

Sunset.

Date: Thursday; 15th of Aviv; "Feast of Unleavened Bread" begins. A day of no regular work.


Date: Friday, 16th of Aviv

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.


Date: Shabat, 17th of Aviv

Jesus in the heart of the earth, three nights, and three days.


Date: First day of the week; 18th of Aviv

Matthew 28:1, but late of the shabats, as it was drawing on toward the first
day of the week ... (cf/cp Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1)

John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb ...

 

[Richard_oti]

"yes"
of course which one you pick will determine which covenant you are under, right
any verbal professions notwithstanding, i guess

Egads: What if I do both? <grin>

 

[epostle1]

Well then, until you realize that Jesus could not have eaten the Passover and also been the Passover, your point is moot from my perspective.

I already said there is no evidence He did.

Your opening statement was incorrect. And again, you did nothing to address my question to you. When you address it, and know the answer, you shall also realize that your "4 cups" proves nothing.

I realize you deny "4 cups". therefore you must deny Paul's mention of the 3rd cup, the cup of blessing, 1 Corinthians 10:16 which he ties to the Eucharist, so discussion with you is a waste of time.

Again, you have yet to realize that Jesus could not have both eaten the Passover and been the Passover. So whether the "4th cup" can be found on any Jewish website matters not.

For the 3rd time, I never said Jesus partook of the consecrated Bread and Wine. We don't know. And 4 cups at the seder/Passover matters a great deal.

 

[epostle1]

Yes, I did notice it. As for my thoughts; Short version:

Wednesday: 14th of Aviv ; Crucifixion

By the time Joseph of Arimathaea goes to Pilate, gets permission, buys new linen, returns, removes the body from the cross, transports the body, wraps the body, and then places the body in the tomb (cf Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, John 19:38), it is very near sunset.

Thursday: 15th of Aviv; "High Shabat" (cf John 19:31) ; First day of "Unleavened Bread" ; night and day in "heart of the earth" ; day 1

Friday: 16th of Aviv; night and day in the "heart of the earth"; day 2

Shabat: 17th of Aviv; night and day in the "heart of the earth"; day 3

Resurrection: In all probability, somewhere around sunset.

Monday: First day of the week while it was still dark, tomb found empty.

Long version:

Sunset, the 13th of Aviv has drawn to a close and the 14th begins (cf Matt 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-13, John 13:1-2)

Matthew is vague, and gives us no real idea. Mark and Luke basically: On the first day of unleaven bread, when/had/must be sacrificed the passover lamb...

John however is much different: 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast... 2 The evening meal was being served...

Per haTorah the 14th of Aviv is the day on which the Passover was/is to be slaughtered (cf Exodus 12:6, Lev. 23:5, Num 9:3, Num 28:16).

Date/Time: 14th of Aviv, the evening/night hours prior to the daylight hours of the 14th.

When evening (opsias; late, nightfall) came, (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, cf/cp John 13:2) Jesus and his disciples eat *supper*.

John 13:2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.

Jesus predicts Peter's denial. Jesus goes out to pray (Matthew 26:36, Mark 14:32, Luke 22:39)

Judas brings the soldiers carrying torches (Matt 26:47, Mark 14:43, Luke 22:47, John 18:3)

Jesus led away, brought first before Annas (John 18:13) then sent before Caiaphas the high priest (Matthew 26:57, John 18:24)

Peter denies Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62, John 18:25-27)

Rooster crows: 14th of Aviv, begin daylight hours.

Early in the morning (Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, Luke 22:66, John 18:28) Jesus led before Roman Governer Pilate (Matthew 27:2, Mark 15:1, Luke 23:1, John 18:28).

Important Note: In John 18:28 they wanted to be able to eat the Passover, here with John 13:1-2 we see IMO that the supper was not the Passover seder.

Pilate sends the Messiah before Herod (Luke 23:7).

Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate (Luke 23:11).

John 18:39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of Passover.

Pilate brings Jesus before the crowd, crowd cries out crucify him, releases Barabbas, Pilate surrenders Jesus to their will (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:25, John 19:16).

John 19:14 It was the day of preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews (cp Luke 23:54).

John 19:16 Pilate hands Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Mark 15:25 It was the third hour when they crucified him.

Sixth hour thru ninth hour, darkness over the land (Matthew 27:45-46, Mark 15:33-34, Luke 23:44).

Ninth hour on the 14th of Aviv (Wednesday), Jesus gives up his spirit (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:34).

Joseph requests body as the evening approaches (Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:42, John 19:38) and the "high shabat" (first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread) was about to begin (Luke 23:50-54, cf John 19:31). The 1st day of "Unleavened"; a shabat shabaton and mele'ket `avodah lo'.

Sunset.

Date: Thursday; 15th of Aviv; "Feast of Unleavened Bread" begins. A day of no regular work.

Date: Friday, 16th of Aviv

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

Date: Shabat, 17th of Aviv

Jesus in the heart of the earth, three nights, and three days.

Date: First day of the week; 18th of Aviv

Matthew 28:1, but late of the shabats, as it was drawing on toward the first
day of the week ... (cf/cp Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1)

John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb ...

Jesus died on Wednesday? That's absurd. You are inventing your own chronology by cherry picking from 4 different Gospel writers. First day of the week is Sunday, it always has been. Three days and 3 nights is a Hebrew idiom, it is not literal. Like I said, I don't have discussions with post-enlightenment cultists. You have Seventh Day Adventism oozing between the lines.

 

[epostle1]

Seventh-day Adventism cannot change its views on the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon without admitting that it was wrong on Sunday worship. It cannot admit that Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast without changing its views on the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventism cannot cease to be anti-Catholic without ceasing to be Seventh-day Adventism.

 

[Richard_oti]

<snip>
A man should not break bread for visitors unless he eats with them, but he may break bread for his children and the members of his household so as to train them in the performance of religious duties. I.e., recite the blessing. Talmud - Mas. Rosh HaShana 29bR.
On the Sabbath it is one's duty to break bread over two loaves... I.e., to recite the blessing. Talmud - Mas. Chullin 7b

While I appreciate the above, let us also remember as to when the Talmud(s) came to be.

Here is some food for thought..... Look into the subjects "Omophagia" and "Bacchants" mean historically. This should be eye opening...

Am familiar with far more than I care to know with regard to such things historically.

The fellowship mentioned seems to reference the communal existence which for them all, would have been a new thing. They were steadfast in this new way of existence for sure.... The strange part for me is that no mention is made of the cup drinking.

I can understand that.

From my perspective the Lords super was both a breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup and if no mention is made about the cup then just the mention of the bread breaking "can be" considered the simple mundane act of sharing meals among a group since it has been referenced that way previously.

Understood. Again though, the cup was after supper.

For an absolute surety if the cup would have been mentioned even once in any of those bread breaking references then it would have swayed my decision but the fact remains that the extremely important part of the ritual that represents the part that covers our sins would not have been left out since it held a higher importance and it would have been absolutely new to them.

Indeed. Ever notice that Judas partook of the "bread", but not of the "cup"? While you probably did, there is no need to say anymore upon it.

There can be no doubt at all that the bread (afikomen which is broken and hidden at the start of seder and ONLY occurs at the "Passover seder") was azumos since for the entire week prior the custom was to clear out any yeast from every house. The ritual of the afikomen is a main point that plays into the yearly consideration for me.

The Gospels all use artos with regard to the "Last Supper". Now some attempt to explain that away and that is fine. As for the afikomen, are we going to use a "ritual" that was stated well after the "Last Supper" to interpret the "Last Supper"? While the veil was torn, the Temple itself remained standing for another 40 years. As for clearing the "yeast", that is what the "preparation day" was all about.

The other point in play here is that the Torah states that we are to remember our redemption by eating unleavened bread at the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Indubitably! Which, from my perspective is the deciding factor. When was the Passover to be slain? When was the "Last Supper"? Can be sacrifice be eaten before it is slain?

There are many of the mainstream variety in which some sort of "unleavened" product is used for "Communion". I say poobah, it is a raised loaf with regard to the "Last / Lord's Supper". "Unleavened Bread" is eaten with the Passover, which, from the time the Passover was slain, then roasted whole, it would have been after sunset, and eaten the evening beginning the 15th, on the 1st day of "Unleavened Bread".

The entire ritual of the Passover was a shadow of good things to come. The yearly ritual was in this case a foreshadowing of when the savior would save us from the bondage of sin by his blood. Apparently God felt that the foreshadowing would be shared among those who owe their saving to God to celebrate it once a year.

Indeed. A night to be much remembered, a night to keep vigil, and in the morning return to your tents (cf Exo 12:42 ; Deut 16:7).

The only thing that has changed is that now we should be celebrating our being saved from the bondage of sin instead of the bondage to egypt, right?

Indubitably! However, the "Last Supper", is too early to be the "Passover Seder". There are not the same event.

It was God who chose the day and time of the celebration and further the day was made a "High Holy Day".

Slow down there cowboy! What was a "High Holy Day"?

For it is not the Passover, the Passover is not a day, it is a sacrifice. The Passover is a sacrifice in an appointed month, on an appointed day at an appointed time(frame). By the time said sacrifice is roasted whole, it would eaten on the 15th, the "High Holy Day" that would be the first day of "Unleavened Bread".

The "Last Supper" occurs a full day too early for the sacrifice to have been slain at the appointed time. You can't partake of the sacrifice before it is slain. The realization of this, was what changed my stance years ago from where you currently stand on this toe-pic.

the fact that the ritual itself was a foreshadowing of something to come would not affect its timing of observance nor its importance to those saved right? the only thing that would change is the focus of its meaning from Egyptian bondage to sin bondage. To change the Holiness decreed for a day would (to me) require an act of God.

Concur. Let's just be sure that we are commemorating the correct timing of that observance.

Our only goal is and always will be to do God's will. If we are corrected in our journey then we are sons..... if there is no correction then we would be bastards according to scripture no?

Indeed.

Now Richard let's consider the context of the verses you reference....
Act 27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band...

Who was delivering Paul to Julius? certainly not believers.... Apparently breaking bread was a common thing among the "people" of that time... even romans. I thought it also strange about the 14th day reference....

It was Paul who took the bread and broke it, giving thanks to "God" which also was a testimony to them (cf Acts 27:22-25). As for the 14 days, don't read much into it. Confer Acts 27:9-12. What is the "Fast" spoken of in v9? And v12 makes it clear what time of year this was.

The last "Feast of Unleavened Bread" was in chapter 20.

Nope. The inventor of the slicer meant for it to be used 364 days a year...

<chuckle> Only according to certain understandings.

Indeed I will always be in a state of learning and holding fast those things that are beyond doubt.

Indubitably!

If it is popular you are absolutely correct it is the "broad path"

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to fables.

This was a first understanding that made me look critically in the first place at the accepted beliefs and then all hell broke loose... from me...

<chuckle> Sounds like perhaps a similar story.

We appear to have similarity of thought... of what feather are you?

Not sure what feather I am, doesn't appear to be Dodo bird nor Ostrich, even though Ostrich don't really stick their head in the sand.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well then, until you realize that Jesus could not have eaten the Passover and also been the Passover, your point is moot from my perspective.




Your opening statement was incorrect. And again, you did nothing to address my question to you. When you address it, and know the answer, you shall also realize that your "4 cups" proves nothing.




Again, you have yet to realize that Jesus could not have both eaten the Passover and been the Passover. So whether the "4th cup" can be found on any Jewish website matters not.

Why could Jesus not have eaten the passover meal
And been the Passover
In the same year??

When He held the bread and said This Is My Body...
Was He not " holding his body"?

Isn't it the same?

 

[GodsGrace]

For those who have difficulty...

Fully = 100%

If one believes Jesus was fully God and fully man
He must also accept that He was 100% God and 100% man.

 

[GodsGrace]

While I appreciate the above, let us also remember as to when the Talmud(s) came to be.




Am familiar with far more than I care to know with regard to such things historically.




I can understand that.




Understood. Again though, the cup was after supper.




Indeed. Ever notice that Judas partook of the "bread", but not of the "cup"? While you probably did, there is no need to say anymore upon it.




The Gospels all use artos with regard to the "Last Supper". Now some attempt to explain that away and that is fine. As for the afikomen, are we going to use a "ritual" that was stated well after the "Last Supper" to interpret the "Last Supper"? While the veil was torn, the Temple itself remained standing for another 40 years. As for clearing the "yeast", that is what the "preparation day" was all about.




Indubitably! Which, from my perspective is the deciding factor. When was the Passover to be slain? When was the "Last Supper"? Can be sacrifice be eaten before it is slain?

There are many of the mainstream variety in which some sort of "unleavened" product is used for "Communion". I say poobah, it is a raised loaf with regard to the "Last / Lord's Supper". "Unleavened Bread" is eaten with the Passover, which, from the time the Passover was slain, then roasted whole, it would have been after sunset, and eaten the evening beginning the 15th, on the 1st day of "Unleavened Bread".




Indeed. A night to be much remembered, a night to keep vigil, and in the morning return to your tents (cf Exo 12:42 ; Deut 16:7).




Indubitably! However, the "Last Supper", is too early to be the "Passover Seder". There are not the same event.




Slow down there cowboy! What was a "High Holy Day"?

For it is not the Passover, the Passover is not a day, it is a sacrifice. The Passover is a sacrifice in an appointed month, on an appointed day at an appointed time(frame). By the time said sacrifice is roasted whole, it would eaten on the 15th, the "High Holy Day" that would be the first day of "Unleavened Bread".

The "Last Supper" occurs a full day too early for the sacrifice to have been slain at the appointed time. You can't partake of the sacrifice before it is slain. The realization of this, was what changed my stance years ago from where you currently stand on this toe-pic.




Concur. Let's just be sure that we are commemorating the correct timing of that observance.




Indeed.




It was Paul who took the bread and broke it, giving thanks to "God" which also was a testimony to them (cf Acts 27:22-25). As for the 14 days, don't read much into it. Confer Acts 27:9-12. What is the "Fast" spoken of in v9? And v12 makes it clear what time of year this was.

The last "Feast of Unleavened Bread" was in chapter 20.




<chuckle> Only according to certain understandings.




Indubitably!




2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to fables.




<chuckle> Sounds like perhaps a similar story.




Not sure what feather I am, doesn't appear to be Dodo bird nor Ostrich, even though Ostrich don't really stick their head in the sand.

Please explain about the last supper being a day too early.
I've read that it was on the 14 th day of Nissan instead of the 15 th.
( I may have that wrong)

 

[KBCid]

Yes, I did notice it.

Oh My.... You do exist.

 

[KBCid]

While I appreciate the above, let us also remember as to when the Talmud(s) came to be.

Understood. Again though, the cup was after supper.

Indeed. Ever notice that Judas partook of the "bread", but not of the "cup"? While you probably did, there is no need to say anymore upon it. (YES I DID)

Yes the Talmud was a later writing when it was written. My own perspective was that even though its time of writing was later it was still a record of what was oral traditions that spanned for centuries before. The Jews were quite good at keeping a record in one form or another right? but in any event this was just my first salvo. I have more cards to play so to speak. Here is the next card in reference to the unleavened bread and the keeping of the yearly festival;

1 Cor5:6Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Here is the second card;

1 cor 11:27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

What I discern here is that when the ritual is done correctly at its proper time then those who are not worthy to take it will become sick and could eventually die from it. Now we see the majority who now attempt to do the Lord's supper at every first day of the week being unaffected by their performance of the ritual even though we know that there are a great many who are not worthy to do it.
Here too I feel that what the many are doing is incorrect based on the narrow gate understanding and if their custom is to perform this at every meeting then it is likely an error of interpretation.
So Richard just to be clear the HS has not stated directly yet what is correct and I still await that revealing thus, I could still be erring in understanding but, I am forming this understanding based on those things which I have already been confirmed of about God by the HS.

The Gospels all use artos with regard to the "Last Supper". Now some attempt to explain that away and that is fine. As for the afikomen, are we going to use a "ritual" that was stated well after the "Last Supper" to interpret the "Last Supper"? While the veil was torn, the Temple itself remained standing for another 40 years. As for clearing the "yeast", that is what the "preparation day" was all about.

Here again I would reference 1 Cor5:6 that directly speaks for the unleavened bread as it is quite probable that translation issues could be in play.

Indubitably! Which, from my perspective is the deciding factor. When was the Passover to be slain? When was the "Last Supper"? Can the sacrifice be eaten before it is slain?
There are many of the mainstream variety in which some sort of "unleavened" product is used for "Communion". I say poobah, it is a raised loaf with regard to the "Last / Lord's Supper". "Unleavened Bread" is eaten with the Passover, which, from the time the Passover was slain, then roasted whole, it would have been after sunset, and eaten the evening beginning the 15th, on the 1st day of "Unleavened Bread".

We know the scripture states;
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

So Passover sacrifice is the 14th at twilight which begins the day of the 15th. My understanding of the Lord's supper is that it was held on the day of the 14th at the beginning of the day which is in fact night time just after the end of the 13th. Remember I noted that in my study on the subject the Jews were holding the sacrifice both at the beginning of the 14th at home and the temple sacrifice at the end of the 14th and they would have already had unleavened bread in play for the 14th. So, when Christ made the new covenant celebration he did it on the same day that he would be sacrificed so that the disciples would understand that the old meaning of this days celebration would be redirected to its new meaning since it was from its beginning a shadow of things to come in the first place.
So these are all my cards on the subject.

Slow down there cowboy! What was a "High Holy Day"?
For it is not the Passover, the Passover is not a day, it is a sacrifice. The Passover is a sacrifice in an appointed month, on an appointed day at an appointed time(frame). By the time said sacrifice is roasted whole, it would eaten on the 15th, the "High Holy Day" that would be the first day of "Unleavened Bread".
The "Last Supper" occurs a full day too early for the sacrifice to have been slain at the appointed time. You can't partake of the sacrifice before it is slain. The realization of this, was what changed my stance years ago from where you currently stand on this toe-pic.
Concur. Let's just be sure that we are commemorating the correct timing of that observance.

17 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day.

Note that it states the evening or end of the 14th day that unleavened bread must be in play. Thus it would be understood that unleavened bread was in fact eaten on the 14th day as it transitions to the 15th. If it had said to eat it from the beginning of the 15th day then we could expect the Lords supper to be normal bread. This is how I discern this point ATM. The 15th is the high holy day that none are to work on so if I have erred in a previous post in some way about this then my apologies. This is the intent that I understand.

 

[KBCid]

1Co 15:24 then--the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power-- 25 for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet-- 26 the last enemy is done away--death; 27 for all things He did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject the all things to him, 28 and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

KBCid said: ↑ So when did Christ become the Fathers Son?

Excellent question. The answer sheds light.

Perfect.

The question I ask is one of the major stumbling points for the Jews and became a further misunderstanding after the apostles time when the wolves moved in and scattered the true sheep and has remained a veiled issue ever since. I will message you on this.

 

[GodsGrace]

@Butterfly
You say the potential for Jesus to sin was always there.

Then why didn't He ever sin?

 

[bbyrd009]

Egads: What if I do both? <grin>

eat crow in private, and admit error publicly? That would be interesting to watch, i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

Then why didn't He ever sin?

ha, you should acknowledge that that is debateable, i can quote the "sin" if you like. Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, but that is not the point--perspective is.

 

[GodsGrace]

ha, you should acknowledge that that is debateable, i can quote the "sin" if you like. Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, but that is not the point--perspective is.

What is the sin?

 

[Helen]

For those who have difficulty...

Fully = 100%

If one believes Jesus was fully God and fully man
He must also accept that He was 100% God and 100% man.

It does not make sense.
No human body can have ALL of God = 100%
and by your own argument you are saying that the 100% human part of Jesus was ALL man...therefore He had the ability to sin...which you have argued about constantly! 100% means 100%

Whoever sold you that puppy sold you a mutt.

But, like you said to Amadeus the other day...you don't need to ask God any more questions because He did that so now you know.
..and have no need to change anything you believe.
Which my my book means you are 'closed and unteachable' , which also means that you can no longer grow spiritually.
God back and find that post, because to the reader...that is what it sounds like you are saying.
Like:- " I am happy with what I believe so the Holy Spirit better not bother me with anything more, I don't need it."

Maybe that is not what you were saying....but that is how it reads.
Bless you ...Helen

 

[bbyrd009]

What is the sin?

ha well the sin is perceived, see, it does not really exist, and the penalty for this "sin" was stoning, anyway, not crucifixion...another massage you will never hear in a church, i guess. But the point is that Jesus did most def break the law, as far as a Jew is concerned. Finding the relation to why He was not stoned, as the law prescribed, is part of the explanation of the sin that was not a sin.

I guess i'm not helping, sorry, but this is all about perception, not about sin. See how Jesus is presented to us in hindsight, we get 20/20 vision there in a sense, as we are invited to perceive from the "Apostle" pov (even though we are really the Jews, in our hearts). This results in many vv being ignored or discounted, as being meant for "the lost" or some other party that will never read Scripture, iow Judas is perceived as "one of them, not one of us," even as many, many "Christians" attempt to manipulate Christ into taking an earthly crown, via rapture doctrine, or a hundred other ways, all committing the sin of Judas, who is "condemned."

 

[GodsGrace]

It does not make sense.
No human body can have ALL of God = 100%
and by your own argument you are saying that the 100% human part of Jesus was ALL man...therefore He had the ability to sin...which you have argued about constantly! 100% means 100%

Whoever sold you that puppy sold you a mutt.

But, like you said to Amadeus the other day...you don't need to ask God any more questions because He did that so now you know.
..and have no need to change anything you believe.
Which my my book means you are 'closed and unteachable' , which also means that you can no longer grow spiritually.
God back and find that post, because to the reader...that is what it sounds like you are saying.
Like:- " I am happy with what I believe so the Holy Spirit better not bother me with anything more, I don't need it."

Maybe that is not what you were saying....but that is how it reads.
Bless you ...Helen

Two mainline churches sold me that puppy.
And he's not a mutt
Not everything about God can be understood. Do you understand the Trinity?

1 Peter 2:22 - Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth

I John 3:5 - And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Hebrews 4:15 - For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If Jesus had a sin nature, He would have eventually sinned.
******************************************

At no time did Jesus ever cease to be God. Although He was made fully human, there was never a point when He abrogated His divine nature (see Luke 6:5, 8). It is equally true that, after becoming incarnate, the Son has never ceased to be human. As the apostle Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5, emphasis added). Jesus is not half-human and half-divine. Rather, He is Theanthropos, the God-man. The Lord Jesus Christ is one eternally divine Person who will forever possess two distinct yet inseparable natures: one divine and one human.

Source: GotQuestions

**************************************

The short answer to your question is: No, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature from Adam. Jesus came to succeed where Adam failed. Jesus is called the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
See All...) and the "second man" (1 Corinthians 15:47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
See All...). Jesus testified that He came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
See All...). What was lost in Adam was to be won in Jesus Christ. However, in order to do this, he only needed to start where Adam started, not where he ended.

Much of the purpose of the virgin birth was to allow Jesus to be fully human but without the Adamic nature. Joseph was "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matthew 1:16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
See All...). Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus did not receive the sinful nature of Joseph. However, He was born in the natural body and in the full likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
See All... states, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." He was born in the flesh, but the inner sin nature was not His nature. He was only born in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. If He had had a sin nature, John could not have said of Him, "in him is no sin" (1 John 3:5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
See All...) and Paul could not have spoken of Him as the one "who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
See All...).

This brings up the question of temptation. A common, though sometimes denied, teaching concerning Christ is that of His impeccability. This is the teaching that Jesus Christ could not have sinned. Thought the temptation was truly given, He could not have submitted to it. The motivation behind this teaching is the horror in even contemplating the idea of Jesus sinning. But this approach by itself does not answer all the problems concerning the temptation of Christ. The Bible teaches that Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
See All...) and that because of what He suffered in temptation, "he is able to succour them that are tempted" (Hebrews 2:18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
See All...). This points to a very real temptation. How could the temptation be real if He could not have submitted to it?

The solution lies in seeing two aspects of the temptation. Physically, Jesus could have sinned. There was nothing hindering Him submitting to the temptations of the devil. He had the same opportunity that Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden. From this aspect, the temptation was real and His victory over temptation was real. He truly suffered in temptation. However, there is another aspect. Morally, Jesus could not have sinned. In this manner, He was truly impeccable. His very nature would not allow Him to sin.

Source: Learn the Bible