zippy2006
New member
John's Eucharistic discourse is found in his 6th chapter, although John's entire Gospel could be read as Eucharistic. :e4e:
For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained
- Thread starter chickenman
- Start date
John's Eucharistic discourse is found in his 6th chapter, although John's entire Gospel could be read as Eucharistic. :e4e:
@ Randy, Pam, Nick, STP:
It seems clear to me that these verses correspond to the other Gospel accounts of the 'Last Supper':
Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
Joh 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
Compare with:
Mat 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
Mat 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
Mar 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread:Mar 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mar 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luk 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
Luk 22:9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
Luk 22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
Luk 22:13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
John records a long discourse after the same supper(Passover meal) that extends from Jn 13-17 but there is no mention of the New Covenant. That seems peculiar to me since it appears that in the other accounts that 'the New Covenant' is central to the event.
I know I haven't provided an answer, but just wanted to layout the timeline and make the question clear.
It seems clear to me that these verses correspond to the other Gospel accounts of the 'Last Supper':
Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
Joh 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
Compare with:
Mat 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
Mat 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
Mar 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread:Mar 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mar 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luk 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
Luk 22:9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
Luk 22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
Luk 22:13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
John records a long discourse after the same supper(Passover meal) that extends from Jn 13-17 but there is no mention of the New Covenant. That seems peculiar to me since it appears that in the other accounts that 'the New Covenant' is central to the event.
I know I haven't provided an answer, but just wanted to layout the timeline and make the question clear.
Maybe it isn't mentioned because it was mentioned 3 times already.
zippy2006
New member
John's Gospel was probably the last written, quite a while after the synoptic Gospels. It seems as if he sort of took much of the other Gospels for granted. Imo his Gospel is flooded with references to the New Covenant.
Just before the Passover, when there are lambs all about, John points out the Lamb of God:
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Or what about this, recalling God, in the beginning, making Adam out of clay:
John 9:6 When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.
Or Nicodemus and the idea of Baptism and a new birth. Or Nicodemus and the snake in the wilderness that must be lifted up. Or the woman at the well, when Jesus reveals the existence of a new kind of water, a water which will truly quench our thirst (which is offered to us all, hence the Samaritan). It is the same life He refers to in John 6. The manna in the desert was eaten and yet they died, but what Christ brings is something different, something new. Sounds like the New Covenant to me.
My Catholic understanding is that the Johannine writings (especially the Gospel and Revelation) provide a deeper insight into what came before, and the connections between the Gospel, Revelation, and the Liturgy are dense to say the least.
True...if one believes that all four accounts were predetermined to be compiled together into one book, thus harmonizing and complimenting one another, as they certainly do.
I can go with that, for I do believe that the scriptures were and are superintended by GOD.
On the other hand, the scriptures also involve the human element, so when Luke writes his letter to Theophilus, he says this:
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
It seems logical to me that all four of the writers would have the same attitude and that since the 'New Covenant' holds such a central place in Israel's eschatology, that John would have mentioned it.....unless perhaps at the time of John's writing, it had lost its' centrality.....at least for the time being.
zippy2006
New member
So what do you think is central to John's Gospel?
Yeah, I think six days means six days, and nothing else. Including Luke writing to Theo (Huxstable?), which was directed by God, even if he didn't know it at the time.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Do you think that is the same as Paul's gospel? I don't. Acts2, repent so the times of refreshing can come.
The appeal throughout the four Gospels for Israel was to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophecied Messiah and that His Kingdom was at hand.
Yes...Peter's appeal to the leadership of Israel in Acts 3 was to repent so that the Messianic Kingdom would come.
These early ministries to Israel definitely have different content from what Paul preaches for the present age.
Last edited:
Yes, Peter full of the Holy Spirit says Jesus was crucified by them and raised up to sit upon the throne of David. Paul says, as per revelation from the the Lord Jesus Christ he was crucified by God the Father for our sin. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.
Pam Baldwin
New member
That's considerate, steko. So, why is that question relevant to this thread?
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Hey Randy, and/or my other MAD bro and sis's-
Why isn't 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 used more to support MAD? How would one be "in Christ" but not necessarily "in the body"? In v2, the NIV seems to try and imply that Paul was speaking of his physical form when taken to heaven.... but v3 makes it pretty clear that Paul was speaking of his status in the BoC. Help? Thoughts? It seems pretty obvious in the KJV and NKJV...
IS Paul speaking about the physical body? Why would Paul have problems with his physical state if he knew the man? Wouldn't the man have told Paul if he was taken in spirit or in the flesh? :idunno:
Why isn't 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 used more to support MAD? How would one be "in Christ" but not necessarily "in the body"? In v2, the NIV seems to try and imply that Paul was speaking of his physical form when taken to heaven.... but v3 makes it pretty clear that Paul was speaking of his status in the BoC. Help? Thoughts? It seems pretty obvious in the KJV and NKJV...
IS Paul speaking about the physical body? Why would Paul have problems with his physical state if he knew the man? Wouldn't the man have told Paul if he was taken in spirit or in the flesh? :idunno:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Hey Deetsy,
I believe Paul was speaking of himself being caught up. He wasn't sure if he was caught up in a body, or just his spirit, or a vision...God knoweth.
(Side note: This is not necessarily a "MAD" teaching - but I believe Paul died when he was stoned in Acts 14 (I think). This was in the area of 14 years before he would have written 2 Corinthians. Personally, I believe he 'experienced' the Rapture and saw all of the thousands and thousands he would impact down through the years...including us alien Gentiles).
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Hey Deetsy,
I believe Paul was speaking of himself being caught up. He wasn't sure if he was caught up in a body, or just his spirit, or a vision...God knoweth.
(Side note: This is not necessarily a "MAD" teaching - but I believe Paul died when he was stoned in Acts 14 (I think). This was in the area of 14 years before he would have written 2 Corinthians. Personally, I believe he 'experienced' the Rapture and saw all of the thousands and thousands he would impact down through the years...including us alien Gentiles).
Why wouldn't Paul have said I? He seems to be pretty clear about when he is the subject- such as when speaking about disp. given to him, etc... So, the standard interp is that Paul was speaking of himself... I will reread and reconsider. Thanks, bromeo!!
Why then and not on the road?