• 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

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
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.
Both Acts and the letters of Paul state that Paul was a Pharisee. All of the evidence we have states that Paul was a Pharisee. More so, the Pharisees were not an elite sect of Jews. They were a sect of Jews. They are the ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism. Since Rabbinical Judaism is not an elite sect of Jews, it isn't very accurate to say that the Pharisees were either.

More so, we have evidence of Pharisaic Jews existing in the Diaspora as well. So it is not out of the question, and really obvious, that Paul was a Pharisee.

As for Peter being the apostles to the Gentiles, Acts and Paul disagree. Paul specifically stated that he was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter the Apostle to the Jews. More so, Paul was recognized as an Apostle. There is a difference between disciple, and apostle. There were 12 disciples.

Finally, for Paul robbing the Nazarenes of converts, there is no evidence for that. More so, we know virtually nothing about the Nazarenes.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The same. Agrippa was but a pet king under the Roman power.
Agrippa was the effective ruler of the area granted to him. He may ultimately answered to Rome, but all accounts show that 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.
I'm talking about a geographical area that has been accepted by the name of Palestine. It is an accepted name for the area, that scholars recognize. There was never a country called Mesopotamia, but people understand that it was a geographical area with understood boundaries. It may be a modern distinction, but it should be clear enough.
Josephus says otherwise.
You criticize me for not providing verses, yet you do this? Hypocrisy? And no, Josephus doesn't say otherwise.
Jesus never claimed to be the king of the Jews. They were some idiots among his followers and those of today who still do.
So then your point fails. If Jesus didn't claim to be the King of the Jews, they wouldn't have tried him as such. Thus the plaque on his cross symbolized something else (such as a mocking tone; signifying that he was guilty of sedition against the state).

Also, calling people idiots really degrades 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.
Embarrassed by what? Maybe instead of attacking me, or questioning what I know, you may want to just support your failing case.
Now, you have decided to go hypothetical. Not much of a help for neither of us.
So basically you're saying you don't have a a logical argument against what I stated.

And really, it isn't hypothetical. I looked at what the verses state, and made a logical argument from them. If that is hypothetical, than you have wasted everyones time by simply going hypothetical yourself from the very beginning.
Not only forgeries but lies to distort the image of Judaism in the sight of the nations.
Clearly you are using a very vague definition of forgery. Because by definition, the Gospels can not be forgeries. There is nothing about them that would put them in that definition. Maybe you want to actually explain what you mean instead of just trying to discredit them by basically nothing more than calling them names.
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.
That isn't simple logic. That is retrojecting your biased ideas and placing them in a first century context. There is no real logic there. Especially when the evidence suggests otherwise (such as Paul claiming to be a Jew, and never stating otherwise).

Maybe instead of just repeating the same tired thing, you might want to address what I've stated. Because you never have.
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.
You just don't want to understand do you? I'm talking about modern day labels that scholars use to make distinctions. Maybe instead of going off on a tangent, you can read and comprehend what I'm saying. Because from your above quote, you simply didn't. You are arguing against something that I didn't even state.
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.
You can hardly say what James believed because we have nothing from him. All we know is that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church, that preached the message of Jesus.

Also, Paul didn't believe in a bodily resurrection like what is stated in the Gospels. You need to actually read what Paul states himself.

Finally, James sanctioned the mission that Paul was on. James approved of Paul. Both Acts and Paul tell us this. So James obviously didn't object too much to what Paul was doing.
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.
Acts never stated that Christians started with Paul. And again, you simply ignore what I've said on the subject. Just repeating yourself, and calling ideas and people names simply is not credible. All you do is show your bias, that is greatly effecting your belief.

Maybe you need to actually read Paul. Before doing that, you should your personal biases, and read him for what he is and what he claims to be. Because you obviously haven't.

When it comes down to it, this really just seems to be an attack on something you don't understand.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a gospel account for us to discuss? Unless you're doing the scholastically irresponsible thing of giving us "mush gospel"...
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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

The scriptures don't support the idea of Israel as God's 'suffering servant'. Nor that the Messiah would be a composite made up of many individuals. Isaiah 53:5, for example, says "he was being pierced for our transgression, he was being crushed for our errors.' This could not apply to an entire nation,but could clearly be fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ. The very word Messiah means anointed one, and Jesus applied that title to himself.
Other Messianic prophecies make it clear that the Messiah would appear at a specific time and place (Daniel 9:25-27)
All the evidence points to Jesus as the true Messiah, the one anointed by God to accomplish his will.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
All the evidence points to Jesus as the true Messiah, the one anointed by God to accomplish his will.
Actually it doesn't. The fact that Jesus died and never accomplished the messianic expectations shows that he is not, and could not be the Jewish Messiah.

If you want him to be the Christian Messiah, that is fine. However, that is also a different being.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
The scriptures don't support the idea of Israel as God's 'suffering servant'. Nor that the Messiah would be a composite made up of many individuals. Isaiah 53:5, for example, says "he was being pierced for our transgression, he was being crushed for our errors.' This could not apply to an entire nation,but could clearly be fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ. The very word Messiah means anointed one, and Jesus applied that title to himself.
Other Messianic prophecies make it clear that the Messiah would appear at a specific time and place (Daniel 9:25-27)
All the evidence points to Jesus as the true Messiah, the one anointed by God to accomplish his will.

If the Scriptures do not support the idea of Israel as God's suffering servant, it is because you don't believe the Prophets. And if the Messiah cannot be a composite made up of a People, I have a question for you. Does the Son of God can be a composite made up of a people? If you think it can't, you may think again and then read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel - the People - is My Son," said the Lord."

Now, with regards to Isaiah 53:5, Jesus was never pierced on his side because such a policy was not practiced by the Romans on any of the crucifieds. The spear-piercing in the case of Jesus was a forgery interpolated by the Hellenistic gospel writer who misinterpreted Zechariah 12:10. This means that when the Jewish People returned from the exile in Babylon back to Jerusalem, happy and jubilant to start anew, they would remind whom they owed their happiess to, Israel, the Suffering Servant and they would mourn for them as one who mourns for his firstborn.

Here is the truth about the spear-piercing business:

No Piercing At Jesus' Side
Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
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.

i agree...and to piggyback
how can a person who proclaims to be god not know what the outcome would be? or did jesus believe he was god by faith?
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a gospel account for us to discuss? Unless you're doing the scholastically irresponsible thing of giving us "mush gospel"...

Aren't you aware of your own NT? At the end of every gospel, under the text of Jesus in the Gentsemane it is written everything which I have included in the thread.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
i agree...and to piggyback
how can a person who proclaims to be god not know what the outcome would be? or did jesus believe he was god by faith?

Jesus was a Jewish man and not a Greek demigod. A Jew cannot believe he is god. It would be if not insanity, a blasphemy.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
No Piercing At Jesus' Side
Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.
This is a misconception. You're arguing against something that simply is not there. The reason for Jesus side being pierced was not to quicken death. It was to make sure that Jesus was dead. So your argument here simply is moot.
2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.
That may be a tradition, but it is a late tradition, and it really doesn't factor in here.
3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.
The piercing would have happened before the alleged confession.
The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben
This has so many errors. Your first and third reasons just show a misconception on your part. As for an interpolation in 327 C.E., that simply is not a logical stance. Primarily because the story, as far as we can tell, is original to the Gospel. More so, the "Fathers of the Church" (they were actually Bishops, the Church fathers were long dead), never selected which books were to be in the NT Canon. The Canon wasn't closed until centuries later. More so, we have evidence of other canons in circulation quite some time before the incident you mention.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Aren't you aware of your own NT? At the end of every gospel, under the text of Jesus in the Gentsemane it is written everything which I have included in the thread.
The problem is that the different Gospels state the event differently. What you have done is picked and chose what parts of information you want in what can be termed your own Gospel. That really just doesn't work.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
[qaote]Agrippa was the effective ruler of the area granted to him. He may ultimately answered to Rome, but all accounts show that he was the ruler.

A pet ruler who had to answer to Caesar, the real king of the Jews.

I'm talking about a geographical area that has been accepted by the name of Palestine. It is an accepted name for the area, that scholars recognize. There was never a country called Mesopotamia, but people understand that it was a geographical area with understood boundaries. It may be a modern distinction, but it should be clear enough.

There is no fixing of your blunder. Any reference to the Land of Israel as "Palestine" is an attempt to replace no only the Theology of the Jew but even the Land of the Jew. There was never a "Palestinian" and there isn't any. The name is Land of Israel.

So then your point fails. If Jesus didn't claim to be the King of the Jews, they wouldn't have tried him as such. Thus the plaque on his cross symbolized something else (such as a mocking tone; signifying that he was guilty of sedition against the state).[/quot

Jesus never proclaimed himself to be a king of the Jews. Quote it, please. After a few requests to quote your assertions, I will stop debating with you. Others proclaimed him king of the Jews. And Pilate was no king to mock. There was nothing more salutary for Pilate than to crucify a Jew. Read Josephus under the chapter about the Roman Governors of Israel.

Also, calling people idiots really degrades your argument. Embarrassed by what? Maybe instead of attacking me, or questioning what I know, you may want to just support your failing case. So basically you're saying you don't have a a logical argument against what I stated.

Idiots were those jerks among the followers of Jesus who proclaimed him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. And today, the idiots who repeat the same message from Christian pulpits remind me of those of the time of Jesus.

Clearly you are using a very vague definition of forgery. Because by definition, the Gospels can not be forgeries. There is nothing about them that would put them in that definition. Maybe you want to actually explain what you mean instead of just trying to discredit them by basically nothing more than calling them names.

Probably, you have never heard about pious forgeries? They were blessed by the Church in the 4th Century. Only as long as they served the purpose to enhance the Churche's credibility.

[quotee]That isn't simple logic. That is retrojecting your biased ideas and placing them in a first century context. There is no real logic there. Especially when the evidence suggests otherwise (such as Paul claiming to be a Jew, and never stating otherwise).

Paul had indeed been a Hellenistic Jew, the son of well-to-do Hellenistic Jewish parents from the city Greek of Tarsus, one of the first cities to be conquered by the Romans. His parents became Romans and eventually Paul inherited it by being born one. Paul himself declared it so. (Acts 21:39)

You can hardly say what James believed because we have nothing from him. All we know is that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church, that preached the message of Jesus.

What James believed was what the real followers of Jesus in the Sect of the Nazarenes believed. That's what he told Paul in his second visit to Jerusalem. That the the thousands of their converts had become Jewish and become zealolus of the Law. (Acts 21:20)

Also, Paul didn't believe in a bodily resurrection like what is stated in the Gospels. You need to actually read what Paul states himself.

That's an advice I give to you: You must read what paul states himself. "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." (I Cor. 15:32) That's the Pauline conditional faith in God worthy menstrual rags. He was ready to make a carnival out of his life is the dead did not resurrect.

Finally, James sanctioned the mission that Paul was on. James approved of Paul. Both Acts and Paul tell us this. So James obviously didn't object too much to what Paul was doing.

Not true. You are not reading between the lines. That was on Paul's second visit to Jerusalem to solve a problem of the Judaizers (Nazarenes) who had been sent to try to restore their synagogue of Antioch which Paul had robbed it of the Nazarenes and overturned it into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26) James was afraid he could repeat the havoc he caused in Jerusalem 14 years ago and simulated an agreement with him but just to get him as fast and far as they could before any more harm he could cause to the Sect of the Nazarenes, which was the reason why the Athorney Tertullus connected him with the Sect of the Nazarenes as a ringleader since James had helped him escape from Jerusalem as he interfered with the work of the authorities by obstructing Justice. (Acts 24:1,5)

Acts never stated that Christians started with Paul. And again, you simply ignore what I've said on the subject. Just repeating yourself, and calling ideas and people names simply is not credible. All you do is show your bias, that is greatly effecting your belief.

Nothing affects my beliefs but the truth, if you can persuade me of another
than the one I have. The disciples of the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch were called Nazarenes. Barnabas, the local leader, in need of help, went after his old friend Paul in Tarsus and invited him over to work with him. That's all Paul needed.
After a whole year of teaching about Jesus as Christ, the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. Therefore, it is only obvious that Christians started with Paul. (Acts 11:19-26)
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
A pet ruler who had to answer to Caesar, the real king of the Jews.
Can you show a quote anywhere that Caesar was considered the king of the Jews? The Emperors were never given that title.

Yes, ultimately, Herod answered to Caesar. However, Herod was a client king. Judea was a client state of the Empire. It was under direct rule of King Herod.

Now, if King of the Jews was just a friendly title given to King Herod; why didn't any of his sons get the Title? If it was a title that really meant nothing, why didn't the emperor just not give it to one of Herod's son's?

The key here though is that we are talking about a client state, and that no emperor was considered king of the Jews.
There is no fixing of your blunder. Any reference to the Land of Israel as "Palestine" is an attempt to replace no only the Theology of the Jew but even the Land of the Jew. There was never a "Palestinian" and there isn't any. The name is Land of Israel.
"Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands." Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yes, Palestine is the correct term, as it references the area I was talking about. It is a modern term scholars use in order to designate that specific geographical area.
Paul had indeed been a Hellenistic Jew, the son of well-to-do Hellenistic Jewish parents from the city Greek of Tarsus, one of the first cities to be conquered by the Romans. His parents became Romans and eventually Paul inherited it by being born one. Paul himself declared it so. (Acts 21:39)
Paul never wrote Acts. Acts is of dubious nature when it comes to Paul, as it contradicts or disagrees with various statements that Paul stated.

As for Paul being a Roman citizen, that is of questionable. In 2 Corinthians 11:25, Paul states that three times he was beaten by rods. Roman citizens were exempt from such a punishment. Also, Paul never mentions being a Roman citizen in any of his letters. It never comes up, even though there were plenty or times to slip that in. As for his parents, we have pretty much no information about them. Paul never mentions them in any sort of detail.

As for the idea of Hellenized Jew; just because one was born in the Diaspora, that did not make them a Hellenized Jew. That seems to be the only argument you have for the idea of Paul being Hellenized Jew. Also, to accept the idea that Paul wasn't a Pharisee, you have to ignore what Acts and the Pauline Epistles state. All you're doing is picking and choosing what fits your preconceived biases.
What James believed was what the real followers of Jesus in the Sect of the Nazarenes believed. That's what he told Paul in his second visit to Jerusalem. That the the thousands of their converts had become Jewish and become zealolus of the Law. (Acts 21:20)
Again, we have no information about the Sect of the Nazarenes during the time of James and Paul. The majority of the information we get is from 3rd or 4th century, and must be taken with a large grain of salt. So you can't state what the Nazarenes believed, because simply, we aren't told of it until much much later. The NT simply states that Paul was the ringleader of a sect called the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). So obviously, the NT is disagreeing with what you've stated (as if James was doing what the Nazarenes believed, he obviously followed Paul, the ringleader according to the NT).

More so, Galatians 2:6-10 specifically says that James, Cephas, and John, the Pillars of the Jerusalem group, gave the right to preach to the Gentiles to Paul and Barnabas. They recognized that Paul was entrusted with the message to the Gentiles. They supported Paul. James allowed Paul to continue with his mission.

Also, here is also a place that states specifically that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter is the Apostle to the Jews.

As a side note, Acts 15 also states that Paul was welcomed by the Apostles and elders of the group in Jerusalem. That he was supported.
That's an advice I give to you: You must read what paul states himself. "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." (I Cor. 15:32) That's the Pauline conditional faith in God worthy menstrual rags. He was ready to make a carnival out of his life is the dead did not resurrect.
Read the entire chapter. Taking one verse, out of context, simply won't win anyone over. Especially when it is basically stating the opposite of what you are implying.

Paul was making an argument as to why the church could know that Jesus had resurrected, that the dead did in fact resurrect. There was never the question that Jesus didn't resurrect. Paul states that clearly in that chapter.

As a clincher, I Corinthians 15:33 (the very next verse) states: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

Paul is reprimanding the very idea that you said he supported.


Not true. You are not reading between the lines.
I will just refer you to my response above.


After a whole year of teaching about Jesus as Christ, the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. Therefore, it is only obvious that Christians started with Paul. (Acts 11:19-26)
Again, you simply ignore what I've said. Acts 11:26 never states that the term Christian had anything to do with Christianity. It never states Paul started the movement. It never states Paul was a Christian. You are reading what you want to read. Simply it isn't supported by the text.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Jesus never proclaimed himself to be a king of the Jews. Quote it, please. After a few requests to quote your assertions, I will stop debating with you. Others proclaimed him king of the Jews. And Pilate was no king to mock. There was nothing more salutary for Pilate than to crucify a Jew. Read Josephus under the chapter about the Roman Governors of Israel.
I never said that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews. Also, Pilate was never a king.

Idiots were those jerks among the followers of Jesus who proclaimed him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places. And today, the idiots who repeat the same message from Christian pulpits remind me of those of the time of Jesus.
One, you're reading the NT way to literally, and simply, ignoring the vast amount of critical scholarship on the subject. And "those idiots" from the pulpits have nothing to do with this. You're simply mudslinging, and it gets you no where.
Probably, you have never heard about pious forgeries? They were blessed by the Church in the 4th Century. Only as long as they served the purpose to enhance the Churche's credibility.
I've read your thread on it and you really had no solid points. You didn't support your ideas, and really, most of what you're saying goes against modern scholarship.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Aren't you aware of your own NT? At the end of every gospel, under the text of Jesus in the Gentsemane it is written everything which I have included in the thread.
But the account has to be scrutinized within its own context. Give me a gospel to discuss.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jesus was a Jewish man and not a Greek demigod. A Jew cannot believe he is god. It would be if not insanity, a blasphemy.
If Jesus is God Incarnate, then God would not have to believe God is God in order to know that God is God.:cool:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The problem is that the different Gospels state the event differently. What you have done is picked and chose what parts of information you want in what can be termed your own Gospel. That really just doesn't work.
Indeed. Which creation account are we talking about? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?:rolleyes:
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
If Jesus is God Incarnate, then God would not have to believe God is God in order to know that God is God.:cool:

this is interesting to me...
did he know he was god or did he believe he was...

if ones self awareness of themselves can not be any more then the next guy...how did jesus self awareness let him know he was god, did he posses omniscience and omnipresence...?
could he see himself on earth as the father...?
this is were i find the entire idea of god incarnate to be very improbable.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
this is interesting to me...
did he know he was god or did he believe he was...

if ones self awareness of themselves can not be any more then the next guy...how did jesus self awareness let him know he was god, did he posses omniscience and omnipresence...?
could he see himself on earth as the father...?
this is were i find the entire idea of god incarnate to be very improbable.
First of all Jesus isn't the Father. Jesus is the Son. The Father is the Father. Jesus is God as the Father is God. If Jesus is God Incarnate he would not have to "believe in himself. He would be fully self-aware as God Incarnate.

Second, God's self-awareness is not contingent upon our self-awareness.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
First of all Jesus isn't the Father. Jesus is the Son. The Father is the Father. Jesus is God as the Father is God. If Jesus is God Incarnate he would not have to "believe in himself. He would be fully self-aware as God Incarnate.

so was jesus omnipotent and omniscient?
 
Top