How do I refute the statement that the book of John states that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred on a different day than the other gospels state.
After looking at all the info I could find, I can't refute this statement and I'm not sure why.
Part of the problem is the difference between when the new day starts at sundown vs at midnight.
How about the day of the crucifixion and the passover?
I know that there are no contradictions in the Bible and it is reasonable to expect that 4 authors would present 4 different accounts. But I am not sure I understand how the book of John presents the time line of the Passover, Lord's Supper and the crucifixion.
John does appear to put the death of Christ on the day before the Passover rather than on the Passover. In the first instance of the Passover the lamb was slain at twilight before the Passover. There is no doubt that all four writers knew the exact day that Jesus died and I'm convinced they were all in agreement. It could be that Jesus died on the day prior to the Passover as did the passover lamb throughout the centuries. If so, that would mean that the passover lamb would be killed on the Temple mount at the same time Jesus was dying on the cross on the Calvary mount. The Passover meal was celebrated on Passover but the lamb was actually killed the day before since the Jewish day begins at sundown.
Regardless (as this is a pretty complicated area and can get heated), the four Gospel writers all agree. If this is so, Jesus and the disciples would have celebrated their meal the evening before making it the last supper. This was a special meal quite unlike any in history. It is the same meal we continue to celebrate every Sunday or as often as we wish.
Passover week often had two Sabbaths, the fifteenth of the month of Abib, and the seventh day or Saturday of that week. It is quite possible that the Passover Sabbath landed on Friday of that week which does seem to put everything into perspective but will find a great deal of disagreement in the church world. Regardless, the Gospel writers did know the exact day of His death and would not be reporting that day on different days.
One possible explanation is that different calenders were used by the writers. John used a newer lunar Calander, according to which, the last supper would have occurred before passover. The Synoptic Gospels used the older calander, according to which, passover was the day of the last supper. It would be the same actual day (April 1, AD 33 on the Julian Calander). At least that's what Physicist Colin Humpbreys argues, and though i haven't read the actual book, it sounds reasonable.
As for different witnesses, it''s not as challenging to solve as it may seem. Consider this: John 20 has Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene. That's in fact what happens in Mark 16. The two Mary's first come upon the empty tomb, but they don't see Jesus. In Verse 9, it goes on to tell us that Jesus Himself first appeared to Mary Magdalene (just as John 20 records). What we see in the first part of Mark 16 is a different event than what we see in John 20; the latter half is what occurs in John 20.
In Matthew 28, the narrative is very similar to Mark. Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to embalm him, find the tomb empty, find an angel, all the same stuff in Mark. The only real difference is that Mary Magdalene is with Mary the mother of James and Salome in Mark, but "the other Mary" in Matthew. Now, could it be that maybe, they might be the same person? I mean, they do have some similarities, like the name Mary...
As far as the inclusion of Joanna in Luke, it should be pointed out that the others don't claim to be exhaustive. They never say "it was ONLY the two women named Mary..." Why would the other two not mention Joanna? I don't know, but then again, who is Joanna? The fact we have to ask that might explain why Matthew and Mark might not mention her, whereas If anyone would include a seemingly insignificant detail that the others don't, it would be Luke. They don't contradict each other, because both can be true.
God's Word also says that whatever a man sows, that shall he reap. A family member is reaping the "wild oats" he sowed as a college student who got a mixed up girl pregnant. God has forgiven both of them, but both of them are reaping the results of their sin. For one it is child support and not being able to spend time with his child. The other had to move home to her parent's house.
But God has forgiven both of them. Both are believers who will spend eternity in heaven.
The only unpardonable sin is rejecting Christ.
II. In The Hands of God
The only actual passage that comes to mind that sounds anything like that would be John 10:28-29
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."
Thanks. That is the verse I was referring to.
Romans 8: 38-39 is a couple of verses that I saw from a new angle, recently. It was a reminder that through the darkest times of my life, God was there. I have started seeing it as a verse that supports eternal security.
I. Proverbs 6:32-33
It doesn't say the sin is unforgiveable, or that it even applies to those who repent. It's important to remember with Proverbs that it is largely focused on earthly things. That isn't to bring it down - it is as God-breathed as the other 65 books. But when it speaks of things like shame, it often is speaking simply of shame. In fact, if you read on, the author tells us what he means by his shame never going away. The very next line is, "For jealousy enrages a man, And he will not spare in the day of vengeance. He will not accept any ransom, Nor will he be satisfied though you give many gifts" (Verses 34-35). He's not even saying what God will do - he's warning the reader that if he sleeps with a married woman, he'd be in danger of her husband seeking vengeance. That's what it means about the shame never going away. It is contrasted with Verses 30-31, about how a thief who steals to feed himself is far less shameful and despised than is an adulterer. It's much more simple and "earthly" than anything pertaining to eternal standing with God (who under the law and now forgives the repentant).
I have heard this problem wrested by a speaker in my church and many other problems , The Bible is the word of God , man tries hard when translating text but man is not God . Some things i believe will be told to them that seek ,other thing will be reveled only in Gods time when he see's fit
Its the word of God Its all good
I have been commenting on youtube videos that are pro-islam and pro-mormon. I finally realized that if I used the Word of God, which is sharper than any 2 edged sword, and never returns void, God will do the rest.
Your comment helps, a lot.