1. 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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Ben Masada, Apr 29, 2011.

  1. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    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
     
  2. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    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.
     
  3. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    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.
     
  4. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    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.
    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.
    Or it means that they are not meant to be taken literal, and were not actually recording history per se.
    Paul was a Jew. He never left Judaism. He was what modern scholars would call a Christian Jew.
     
  5. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
     
  6. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    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.
    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.
    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.
    I think you are using a very vague definition of forgery. The Gospels aren't forgeries.
    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.
     
  7. Protoman

    Protoman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  8. rusra02

    rusra02 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,758
    Ratings:
    +497
    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.
     
  9. Protoman

    Protoman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well answered.
     
    #9 Protoman, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011
  10. Hodad

    Hodad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Ratings:
    +1
    Just a thought...they knew about Scotland and never ruled it. I'm sure if I thought longer I could come up with more.
     
  11. Hodad

    Hodad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  12. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    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.

    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.
     
  13. Luminous

    Luminous non-existential luminary

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    Ratings:
    +154
    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.
     
    #13 Luminous, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011
  14. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
     
  15. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    Thank you, for you have confirmed my views.
     
  16. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    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
     
  17. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    But they conquered Israel and ruled it.
     
  18. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    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.
     
  19. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,413
    Ratings:
    +71
    No, he didn't. He was only one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.
     
  20. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    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.
     
Loading...