• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gethesemane Myth

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
The Gethsemane Myth.

It has become a cliche to claim that Jesus laid his life down ow his own will because no one would take it. The opposite is rather true. The authorities were out for him and he escaped to the Gethsemane, and into a secret place that only he and his disciples knew it, including Judas.

Then, in the night of Thursday, while the disciples slept, he could not sleep. He would pray. And he prayed three times asking God to spare him from walking the Via Dolorasa. That is, he did not want to die on the cross. However, the myth goes that he shed his blood for the sins of Mankind.

The truth though is that Jesus shed his blood for no one, because, according to Jeremiah 31:30, everyone is supposed to die for his own iniquity. Then, it was against Jesus' will to walk the Via Dolorosa.

He prayed three times at the Gethsemane asking God not to have to die on the cross. When he realized that he was wasting his time, he said, "Be thy will done and not mine." Not mine! What was Jesus' will then? Obviously not to die on the cross for no one. It means the poor fella had to go to the cross against his own will.

So, Jesus shed his blood for none but because of some idiots who were proclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. And that was enough of a reason for Pilate to nail one more Jew on the cross. No wonder he also nailed a plate with the reason why Jesus had been crucified: On political charges of being proclaimed king of the Jews, where Caesar was king.

Today, when I am listening to preachers of the gospels still claiming that Jesus was king of the Jews, I am reminded that the same idiots are back in the hope of more Jews to crucify or to remind the example given off by Jesus.
Ben
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
First, Caesar wasn't king of the Jews. We see that both Herod the Great, and Herod Agrippa both held the title King of the Jews, and was given it by the Romans. Claiming to be the King of Jews would not have been punishable by death anyway. It would be like me claiming to be the President of the United States. It would gain attention, but not worthy of someone being killed.

If Jesus had wanted to spare himself though, all he had to do was leave Jerusalem. It would not have taken a genius to know that Jesus had caused a disturbance, was pushing the line that Rome would allow, and had a very possible target on his head. He knew what he was in for. Anyone who acted in the way that Jesus did, in that time period, would have known exactly what they were doing and the possible price it may cause.

Also, there is no suggestion that Jesus escaped to Gethesemane. It wasn't some long off hidden place. It would have been easy enough for the Roman or Jewish authorities (or soldiers) to have followed Jesus there. Especially since it was used by others as well. It wasn't a secret location.

More so, after the actions of Jesus that would have made him a target, he never hid anyway. And there is no suggestion that Jesus didn't plan on going back into the public the next day anyway. It simply isn't reasonable to assume Jesus was trying to hide.

As to what happened that night, there is no consensus. Each Gospel reports things a little bit differently. I really think you are looking to literally at the account.

Finally, you are retrojecting modern ideas of atonement on to a historical setting. Paul clearly had a different idea then what you are saying.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
First, Caesar wasn't king of the Jews. We see that both Herod the Great, and Herod Agrippa both held the title King of the Jews, and was given it by the Romans. Claiming to be the King of Jews would not have been punishable by death anyway. It would be like me claiming to be the President of the United States. It would gain attention, but not worthy of someone being killed.

If Jesus had wanted to spare himself though, all he had to do was leave Jerusalem. It would not have taken a genius to know that Jesus had caused a disturbance, was pushing the line that Rome would allow, and had a very possible target on his head. He knew what he was in for. Anyone who acted in the way that Jesus did, in that time period, would have known exactly what they were doing and the possible price it may cause.

Also, there is no suggestion that Jesus escaped to Gethesemane. It wasn't some long off hidden place. It would have been easy enough for the Roman or Jewish authorities (or soldiers) to have followed Jesus there. Especially since it was used by others as well. It wasn't a secret location.

More so, after the actions of Jesus that would have made him a target, he never hid anyway. And there is no suggestion that Jesus didn't plan on going back into the public the next day anyway. It simply isn't reasonable to assume Jesus was trying to hide.

As to what happened that night, there is no consensus. Each Gospel reports things a little bit differently. I really think you are looking to literally at the account.

Finally, you are retrojecting modern ideas of atonement on to a historical setting. Paul clearly had a different idea then what you are saying.

Caesar was the Emperor of the whole known world; therefore, king of Israel too. None of the pet kings could do anything Caesar would not approve. If claiming to be king of the Jews would not be punishable with death, Pilate was an idiot to have nailed that plate on the top of Jesus' cross with the reason why he had been crucified.

If the Gethsemane was not a secret custumary place for the group, Judas would not have been needed to guide the soldiers where Jesus was. So, according to John 18:2,3, my views remain. And he did escape to the Gethsemane because when he told Judas to go and do his dirty job, they had been in the Upper Room having supper. He could have waited to be arrested where Judas had left him. But he preferred to go to their secret place in the Gethsemane. Therefore, he was trying to hide at least to buy time to pray or to consider a different solution than to die on the cross.

If the gospels were not unanimous, which I agree with you, it means that there are contradictions in the NT. And that it was not inspired by the Spirit of God because God is not a Spirit of confusion.

Of course, Paul had a different idea from mine. His was to replace the Theology of Judaism; mine is to bring up the truth to the light.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Caesar was the Emperor of the whole known world; therefore, king of Israel too. None of the pet kings could do anything Caesar would not approve. If claiming to be king of the Jews would not be punishable with death, Pilate was an idiot to have nailed that plate on the top of Jesus' cross with the reason why he had been crucified.
Caesar was the Emperor, not the King of the Jews. There is a difference. That is why Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa where able to be given the title King of the Jews. There was a difference.

More so, the title simply showed that Jesus was charged with sedition. There is no reason to think that one could be killed for claiming to be the King of the Jews.
If the Gethsemane was not a secret custumary place for the group, Judas would not have been needed to guide the soldiers where Jesus was. So, according to John 18:2,3, my views remain. And he did escape to the Gethsemane because when he told Judas to go and do his dirty job, they had been in the Upper Room having supper. He could have waited to be arrested where Judas had left him. But he preferred to go to their secret place in the Gethsemane. Therefore, he was trying to hide at least to buy time to pray or to consider a different solution than to die on the cross.
So Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, told Judas to do it quickly, and then hid? How does that make sense? Obviously, Jesus knew what Judas would do (according to the text), and then gave Judas the information that was needed in order to find him. That is not hiding at all.
If the gospels were not unanimous, which I agree with you, it means that there are contradictions in the NT. And that it was not inspired by the Spirit of God because God is not a Spirit of confusion.
Or it means that they are not meant to be taken literal, and were not actually recording history per se.
Of course, Paul had a different idea from mine. His was to replace the Theology of Judaism; mine is to bring up the truth to the light.
Paul was a Jew. He never left Judaism. He was what modern scholars would call a Christian Jew.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Caesar was the Emperor, not the King of the Jews. There is a difference. That is why Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa where able to be given the title King of the Jews. There was a difference.

Caesar was the earthly supreme king of the Jews. He conferred the title of king of the Jews to Herod as a gift for their friendship. Don't forget that Herod grew up in Rome as a friend of Caesar in the palace, according to Josephus. So, it was a custom of Roman Emperors to grant titles as gifts or severance pay for certain services to friends.

More so, the title simply showed that Jesus was charged with sedition. There is no reason to think that one could be killed for claiming to be the King of the Jews.

That's simply absurd. The Roman Governor of Judea, who would crucify a Jew for any reason whatsoever, would let a Jew go who had been proclaimed king of the Jews.

So Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, told Judas to do it quickly, and then hid? How does that make sense? Obviously, Jesus knew what Judas would do (according to the text), and then gave Judas the information that was needed in order to find him. That is not hiding at all.

Now, please, pick up your NT and quote to me where Jesus gave Judas the information that he would be waiting for him in the Gethsemane. Thank you. Otherwise, you are reading your words into the text.

Or it means that they are not meant to be taken literal, and were not actually recording history per se.

There is some history and a lot of forgeries.

Paul was a Jew. He never left Judaism. He was what modern scholars would call a Christian Jew.

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew till he founded Christianity in the city of Antioch, 30 years after Jesus had been gone. That's when he officially left Judaism and became a Christian. There is no such a thing as a hyphenated Jew. One is either a Jew or a Christian. You remind me of the Jews-for-Baal of the time of Elijah. They had accepted the religion of Baal and insisted on being identified as Jews. Elijah answered to their pretension by executing 850 of them in the brook of Kishon. Read I Kings 18:22,40
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Caesar was the earthly supreme king of the Jews. He conferred the title of king of the Jews to Herod as a gift for their friendship. Don't forget that Herod grew up in Rome as a friend of Caesar in the palace, according to Josephus. So, it was a custom of Roman Emperors to grant titles as gifts or severance pay for certain services to friends.
And how does that factor in with Herod Agrippa?

Also, it was much more than just a title. For all intensive purposes, Herod was the King of the Jews. He was the ruler of Palestine. Yes, ultimately he had to answer to the Emperor, but he was the ruler.

Once again though, there is a difference between Emperor (such as Augustus), and King (such as Herod). Herod was appointed King by Augustus. Whether or not they had a friendship matters little because that was not the reason he was appointed King. Our historical records make that quite obvious.
That's simply absurd. The Roman Governor of Judea, who would crucify a Jew for any reason whatsoever, would let a Jew go who had been proclaimed king of the Jews.
It isn't absurd at all. Look at the case of Jesus son of Ananias. He prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. That certainly could have seen as an act against Rome. Rome even beat him, but then released him as they labeled him a madman. They could have easily done the same for Jesus, or anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews.
Now, please, pick up your NT and quote to me where Jesus gave Judas the information that he would be waiting for him in the Gethsemane. Thank you. Otherwise, you are reading your words into the text.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. I'm reading into the NT, and that's a problem. Yet, when you do it, there is no problem. Hypocrisy, and that really doesn't help your argument.

And really, it is logical that Judas would know where to go. He was part of the disciples. He was there at the last supper when they were talking about what was going to happen (that he would be taken by the Romans and killed). He knew that someone was going to betray him, and even pointed it out to be Judas. Then Judas seemingly has no problem finding him. Not much of a secret.
There is some history and a lot of forgeries.
I think you are using a very vague definition of forgery. The Gospels aren't forgeries.
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew till he founded Christianity in the city of Antioch, 30 years after Jesus had been gone. That's when he officially left Judaism and became a Christian. There is no such a thing as a hyphenated Jew. One is either a Jew or a Christian. You remind me of the Jews-for-Baal of the time of Elijah. They had accepted the religion of Baal and insisted on being identified as Jews. Elijah answered to their pretension by executing 850 of them in the brook of Kishon. Read I Kings 18:22,40
The term Christianity never appears in the Bible, and it doesn't appear anywhere until the second century. More so, the term Christian is only found twice in the Bible, and does not relate a new religion. In addition, the verse you are talking about never states that Paul founded Christianity. It simply states that the term Christian was first used in Antioch. If you look at the scholarship on the subject, it is most likely that the term Christian was made up by Roman officials to distinguish this new sect of Jews. From the sources that we have, the first followers of Jesus thought of themselves as Jews, or God-fearers (it was this latter group that Paul preached to. Gentiles who followed Judaism to a point without converting).

As for a hyphenated Jew, you simply weren't paying attention. A Jewish Christian, or Christian Jew, is a term scholars now use to distinguish the followers of Jesus apart from other Jews. It is the same basic premises that people use labels as Pharisees, Essenes, etc.

They followed Judaism. They were Jews (who had officially converted), many devout (James, the brother of Jesus, is a great example. Josephus tells us that James was considered a Jew all the way up until his death. More so, we are told that he was quite respected). They were simply Jews who believed in Jesus. That doesn't mean they thought him a god, or God, or anything of the sort. They just believed in what Jesus taught, and that his resurrection signaled the beginning of the general resurrection. Paul was among this group.

Finally, there was no Christianity during the time of Paul. Paul is never stated to have founded such a thing. More so, Paul tells us exactly the opposite, that he was a Jew and continued to be a Jew.
 

Protoman

New Member
The Gethsemane Myth.
The truth though is that Jesus shed his blood for no one, because, according to Jeremiah, everyone is supposed to die for his own iniquity. Then, it was against Jesus' will to walk the Via Dolorosa.
Ezekiel 18:21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Gethsemane Myth.

It has become a cliche to claim that Jesus laid his life down ow his own will because no one would take it. The opposite is rather true. The authorities were out for him and he escaped to the Gethsemane, and into a secret place that only he and his disciples knew it, including Judas.

Then, in the night of Thursday, while the disciples slept, he could not sleep. He would pray. And he prayed three times asking God to spare him from walking the Via Dolorasa. That is, he did not want to die on the cross. However, the myth goes that he shed his blood for the sins of Mankind.

The truth though is that Jesus shed his blood for no one, because, according to Jeremiah 31:30, everyone is supposed to die for his own iniquity. Then, it was against Jesus' will to walk the Via Dolorosa.

He prayed three times at the Gethsemane asking God not to have to die on the cross. When he realized that he was wasting his time, he said, "Be thy will done and not mine." Not mine! What was Jesus' will then? Obviously not to die on the cross for no one. It means the poor fella had to go to the cross against his own will.

So, Jesus shed his blood for none but because of some idiots who were proclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. And that was enough of a reason for Pilate to nail one more Jew on the cross. No wonder he also nailed a plate with the reason why Jesus had been crucified: On political charges of being proclaimed king of the Jews, where Caesar was king.

Today, when I am listening to preachers of the gospels still claiming that Jesus was king of the Jews, I am reminded that the same idiots are back in the hope of more Jews to crucify or to remind the example given off by Jesus.
Ben

Jesus clearly did willingly give up his life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28). He knew beforehand what he would face to do this. Mark 10:33,34 state: "the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and will deliver him to men of the nations and they will make fun of him and will spit upon him and scourge him and kill him, but three days later he will rise."
This course of the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example.)
Jesus faced his death courageously. When he prayed to his Father in the garden, he said "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) Jesus was not begging off from doing God's will. He rejected outright Peter's suggestion that Jesus could spare himself from this death. (Matthew 16:21-23) Still, it was not easy for him to anticipate dying as an accused blasphemer against God, as he realized the pain this would cause his Father. The tremendous responsibility God had intrusted to his son was a heavy weight to bear. Jesus showed remarkable courage throughout his ordeal.
 

Protoman

New Member
Jesus clearly did willingly give up his life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28). He knew beforehand what he would face to do this. Mark 10:33,34 state: "the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and will deliver him to men of the nations and they will make fun of him and will spit upon him and scourge him and kill him, but three days later he will rise."
This course of the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example.)
Jesus faced his death courageously. When he prayed to his Father in the garden, he said "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) Jesus was not begging off from doing God's will. He rejected outright Peter's suggestion that Jesus could spare himself from this death. (Matthew 16:21-23) Still, it was not easy for him to anticipate dying as an accused blasphemer against God, as he realized the pain this would cause his Father. The tremendous responsibility God had intrusted to his son was a heavy weight to bear. Jesus showed remarkable courage throughout his ordeal.
Well answered.
 
Last edited:

Hodad

Member
Of course, Paul had a different idea from mine. His was to replace the Theology of Judaism; mine is to bring up the truth to the light.

Actually, the Pharisee Shaul, who we call Paul, had no intention of replacing Judaism. He sought to bring it back in line with the Judaism of the first Temple era (and before) in regards to Gentiles. Paul is one of the most misunderstood writers found in the Apostolic Writings and one who's writings are most often twisted to fit the Christian and Jewish anti-missionary's agendas.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
This course of the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example.)
You should read Isaiah 53. It never mentions the Messiah. It was only later on, when the Gospel writers and followers of Jesus started spreading stories that Isaiah 53 was attached to Messianic thought. And that was only because his followers searched back through the OT to see if they could make anything fit with Jesus.

However, again, Isaiah 53 never states anything about the Messiah.

Still, it was not easy for him to anticipate dying as an accused blasphemer against God, as he realized the pain this would cause his Father. The tremendous responsibility God had intrusted to his son was a heavy weight to bear. Jesus showed remarkable courage throughout his ordeal.
Jesus never blasphemed, or as far as we can tell. The charges that were brought up against him by the Jewish authorities were bogus. And most likely, historically, never happened. Especially since none of the accounts can agree on what happened.

The Romans killed Jesus. Jesus was a criminal in the eyes of Rome. Pilate really needed little to kill another Jew. And Jesus gave that little that was needed. He caused a scene, during Passover (a time that the Jews were celebrating their liberation), that could have easily ended up escalating into a riot (this would not have been the first time that Rome had to take action during a festival).

Finally, your idea of what happened is based on later interpretation from a later time.
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Getting back to the topic, I believe that Yeshua commited assisted suicide which is a Abrahamic sin. He sacrafised three days of his eternal life. He was commiting treason and was famous for it.
 
Last edited:

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
And how does that factor in with Herod Agrippa?

The same. Agrippa was but a pet king under the Roman power.

Also, it was much more than just a title. For all intensive purposes, Herod was the King of the Jews. He was the ruler of Palestine. Yes, ultimately he had to answer to the Emperor, but he was the ruler.

Herod was never the ruler of "Palestine" because such a place did not exist. There was never a "Palestine" country in the History of Mankind. "Palestine" began to be just an encrust of the Otoman Empire and stayed so until we, the legitimate owners, turned it back to its original name of Israel.

Once again though, there is a difference between Emperor (such as Augustus), and King (such as Herod). Herod was appointed King by Augustus. Whether or not they had a friendship matters little because that was not the reason he was appointed King. Our historical records make that quite obvious.

Josephus says otherwise.

It isn't absurd at all. Look at the case of Jesus son of Ananias. He prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. That certainly could have seen as an act against Rome. Rome even beat him, but then released him as they labeled him a madman. They could have easily done the same for Jesus, or anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews.

Jesus never claimed to be the king of the Jews. They were some idiots among his followers and those of today who still do.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. I'm reading into the NT, and that's a problem. Yet, when you do it, there is no problem. Hypocrisy, and that really doesn't help your argument.

It means you got embarrassed to read your own words into the text without knowing what you were talking about. I am accustomed to this kinds of things.

And really, it is logical that Judas would know where to go. He was part of the disciples. He was there at the last supper when they were talking about what was going to happen (that he would be taken by the Romans and killed). He knew that someone was going to betray him, and even pointed it out to be Judas. Then Judas seemingly has no problem finding him. Not much of a secret.

Now, you have decided to go hypothetical. Not much of a help for neither of us.

I think you are using a very vague definition of forgery. The Gospels aren't forgeries.

Not only forgeries but lies to distort the image of Judaism in the sight of the nations.

The term Christianity never appears in the Bible, and it doesn't appear anywhere until the second century. More so, the term Christian is only found twice in the Bible, and does not relate a new religion. In addition, the verse you are talking about never states that Paul founded Christianity. It simply states that the term Christian was first used in Antioch. If you look at the scholarship on the subject, it is most likely that the term Christian was made up by Roman officials to distinguish this new sect of Jews. From the sources that we have, the first followers of Jesus thought of themselves as Jews, or God-fearers (it was this latter group that Paul preached to. Gentiles who followed Judaism to a point without converting).

Christianity came from the place and person where Christians were first called Christians from and by. That's simple Logic. And the coverts to the Sect of the Nazarenes would indeed become Jewish. (Acts 21:20) But they were reverted back to Gentiles as they chose to follow Paul as a Christian.

As for a hyphenated Jew, you simply weren't paying attention. A Jewish Christian, or Christian Jew, is a term scholars now use to distinguish the followers of Jesus apart from other Jews. It is the same basic premises that people use labels as Pharisees, Essenes, etc.

To the hell with what scholars think or not. There was never such a thing as a Christian-Pharisee or Essene-Christian. Neither a Jewish-Christian or Christian-Jew. One is either one or the other.

They followed Judaism. They were Jews (who had officially converted), many devout (James, the brother of Jesus, is a great example. Josephus tells us that James was considered a Jew all the way up until his death. More so, we are told that he was quite respected). They were simply Jews who believed in Jesus. That doesn't mean they thought him a god, or God, or anything of the sort. They just believed in what Jesus taught, and that his resurrection signaled the beginning of the general resurrection. Paul was among this group.

James was always a Jew, just like Jesus. They believed in Jesus' teachings but not that he was what Paul preached about him to be. They never believed in bodily resurrection. This is against the Scriptures and natural laws. And Paul was not among this group. Paul was a Christian. Therefore, no longer a Jew.

Finally, there was no Christianity during the time of Paul. Paul is never stated to have founded such a thing. More so, Paul tells us exactly the opposite, that he was a Jew and continued to be a Jew.

Paul was a psychopathic liar. If Christians started with Paul he was a Christian. Therefore the founded of Christianity. The Jews-for-Baal also thought they were Jews until Elijah killed 850 of their prophets and the foolishness was over.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Ezekiel 18:21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.

Thank you, for you have confirmed my views.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Jesus clearly did willingly give up his life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28). He knew beforehand what he would face to do this. Mark 10:33,34 state: "the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and will deliver him to men of the nations and they will make fun of him and will spit upon him and scourge him and kill him, but three days later he will rise."
This course of the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example.)
Jesus faced his death courageously. When he prayed to his Father in the garden, he said "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) Jesus was not begging off from doing God's will. He rejected outright Peter's suggestion that Jesus could spare himself from this death. (Matthew 16:21-23) Still, it was not easy for him to anticipate dying as an accused blasphemer against God, as he realized the pain this would cause his Father. The tremendous responsibility God had intrusted to his son was a heavy weight to bear. Jesus showed remarkable courage throughout his ordeal.

According to whom Isaiah 53 is a prophecy to what happened to Jesus, you? Here is what Isaiah 53 is all about:



The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then whom did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That's in Isaiah 1:1: "A vision about Judah and Jerusalem." That's the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the name Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Now, we have extablished a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant is Israel, the resultant premise will obviously be that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.

Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here's what it says in there: "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's why Hosea said that "When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)

Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; which he contributed heavily finacially; and in our modern times, we had Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.

How about Jesus, what do we have to classify him as at least a Messianic leader? Well, when he was born Israel was at home, although suffering under the foreign power of the Romans. As he grew up that suffering only got worse. When he left, the collective Messiah was expelled into another exile of about 2000 years. Not even as a Messianic leader he could not classify. Let alone as the Messiah himself.

Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.

Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Actually, the Pharisee Shaul, who we call Paul, had no intention of replacing Judaism. He sought to bring it back in line with the Judaism of the first Temple era (and before) in regards to Gentiles. Paul is one of the most misunderstood writers found in the Apostolic Writings and one who's writings are most often twisted to fit the Christian and Jewish anti-missionary's agendas.

Paul was never a Pharisee. The Pharisees constituted a Jewish Sect of elite and they would never, as a question of policy, accept a Hellenist Jew, as Paul was one, as a son of Hellenist well-to-do parents from Tarsus, one of the first city states to be conquered by the Romans. Paul was incapable to raise a church from scratch with Gentiles only. His custom was to robe the Nazarenes from their converts and overturn their synagogues into Christian churches. And last but not least, Paul was not an apostle. There were no 13 Apostles but only 12. And the Apostle to the Gentiles was Peter and not Paul. (Acts 15:7) Paul was a self-appointed apostle.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Getting back to the topic, Yeshua commited assisted suicide which is a Abrahamic sin. He sacrafised three days of his eternal life. He was commiting treason and was famous for it.

No, he didn't. He was only one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Getting back to the topic, Yeshua commited assisted suicide which is a Abrahamic sin. He sacrafised three days of his eternal life. He was commiting treason and was famous for it.
He never committed assisted suicide. Like you said he committed treason. He was a criminal in the eyes of Rome, and thus was executed. That isn't assisted suicide. That is being executed.
 
Top