Replies

Using the number of fish and loaves an people fed, the parallel of John 6 in Matthew is Ch 14. Succot occurs in Matthew 17 as Peter wants to make booths for Jesus, Elijah and Moses. The feeding of the 4000 (Matt 15:32-39) likely happens around Yom Teruah. Matthew does not mention how much time passed between feeding the 5000 and feeding the 4000.

He does not claim to be saving the masses, but a small remnant to enjoy his rest.

This sounds like a weak unloving god, not a shepherd who would leave the flock to save a single lost lamb.

Finally, Yeshua could not miss any required feast, since a violation of Torah would have disqualified him from the sinlessness needed to be the perfect sacrifice.

And John provides a reason why Jesus did not go to Jerusalem in John 6, certain Jews intended to kill him. As Jesus was the Paschal Lamb, had he gone to Jerusalem with the knowledge that certain Jews wanted to bring him into the Bet HaMikdash; this would set in motion the start of the 4 days at which point Jesus would have to be sacrificed before his time had come.

John would never have called Passover “a feast of the Jews” since he clearly knew that it was a required feast for all the nations.

At that time it was a feast for the Jews, the first Easter had not yet happened. Also, my translation (NRSV2CE) uses the definite article, not the indefinite article. Examining John 6:4 using the Complete Jewish Bible and the Orthodox Jewish Bible, the definite article is used not the indefinite article. In addition, uncircumcised may not eat of the Passover sacrifice (Ex 12:43-49) and the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) ruled that Gentiles need not be circumcised. So Passover is a festival of the Jews.

Lots of typical catholic erroneous comments spewing uncontrollably from your keyboard.

Your posts to date come across as being written by a ranting raving lunatic. If the Truth is for a select few like yourself, why are you wasting time on an internet forum attempting to convince us of it? Why aren't you content to tell us, "told you so at judgement day"? If on the other hand you would like to convince us now that you have access to the Truth, why do you step into arguments between one group saying the RCC hates Sacred Scripture and another group that maintains the RCC preserved Sacred Scripture and say that the Scripture we read is filled with errors? Do you maintain that this is an effective way to convince anyone of the Truth? Why don't you post links to stories about this finding of an accurate version of Matthew?

Yehova did protect his word by preserving sufficient copies of the Hebrew original of Matthew’s gospel for the time that it really matters.

Did he preserve sufficient copies of the original of Mark and John? Your various posts indicate your belief that Mark and John have been corrupted and that the true original of Mark might not be discovered. This god you preach comes across as weak and unloving; actually it sounds like the Devil, who is not God.

Did he preserve sufficient copies of the original of Mark and John? Your various posts indicate your belief that Mark and John have been corrupted and that the true original of Mark might not be discovered. This god you preach comes across as weak and unloving; actually it sounds like the Devil, who is not God.

But; do not most ALL Catholics in these threads say one MUST go back to the Greek to 'really' understand the Scripture meaning?

>> “Using the number of fish and loaves an people fed, the parallel of John 6 in Matthew is Ch 14.” <<

Yes, but Matthew is not in chronological order; it jumps around. But the feeding of the 5000 is in all four gospels, thus making it easy to fix it in time. Luke and Mark are perfectly chronological. These two are the best way to associate the events.

>> “And John provides a reason why Jesus did not go to Jerusalem in John 6” <<

.
There was no passover in John 6, it was added in 300 or so years later. The early MS do not contain the words of John 6:4.

All should know that Yeshua had to go up for Passover, because he was the lamb, and he had to attend all of the required feasts anyway to fulfill his ministry. Had he missed one he would not have been our savior.

>> “This sounds like a weak unloving god, not a shepherd who would leave the flock to save a single lost lamb” <<

.
You should take up reading God’s word. He says that he will only save a remnant that passes through the narrow gate.

The catholic’s wide gate will be the path of the rest, and it leads to the lake that burns.