The Gethesemane Myth

[sojourner]

so was jesus omnipotent and omniscient?

There are some passages that imply he was. He knew he would be killed. He knew who would betray him. He knew Peter would deny him. he knew the centurion's daughter was not dead. he raised Lazarus from the dead, as well as the young man, whose bier he touched. He walked on water and calmed the sea storm. There are other examples.

 

[Jacksnyte]

There are some passages that imply he was. He knew he would be killed. He knew who would betray him. He knew Peter would deny him. he knew the centurion's daughter was not dead. he raised Lazarus from the dead, as well as the young man, whose bier he touched. He walked on water and calmed the sea storm. There are other examples.

The same could be said of literally thousands of Hindu saints as well.

 

[sojourner]

The same could be said of literally thousands of Hindu saints as well.

Your point?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Your point?

Why would one guy who wasn't really doing anything all that remarkable when you take into account all the other wonder-working saints and "god-men" of the time be considered omnipotent and the same as god, and none of the others? If looked at in the context of the times, he was pretty insignificant.

 

[waitasec]

There are some passages that imply he was. He knew he would be killed. He knew who would betray him. He knew Peter would deny him. he knew the centurion's daughter was not dead. he raised Lazarus from the dead, as well as the young man, whose bier he touched. He walked on water and calmed the sea storm. There are other examples.

so the bible claims...
and you have to admit...the gospels were used as propaganda because they were written for intended audiences...

"In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), Jesus refuses to give a miraculous sign to prove his authority....In John, Jesus is said to have performed seven miraculous signs that punctuate his ministry, from changing water into wine at the start of his ministry to raising Lazarus from the dead at the end"

...which did what? prove his authority perhaps...

Miracles of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sojourner]

Why would one guy who wasn't really doing anything all that remarkable when you take into account all the other wonder-working saints and "god-men" of the time be considered omnipotent and the same as god, and none of the others? If looked at in the context of the times, he was pretty insignificant.

Why does Jesus have to have done something "remarkable" in order to be considered God Incarnate? His birth was humble, his life was humble, his death was humble. He was, in every way, like we are...
I suspect that the other religious figures you mention are considered to be deific in some sense.

 

[sojourner]

so the bible claims...
and you have to admit...the gospels were used as propaganda because they were written for intended audiences...

"In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), Jesus refuses to give a miraculous sign to prove his authority....In John, Jesus is said to have performed seven miraculous signs that punctuate his ministry, from changing water into wine at the start of his ministry to raising Lazarus from the dead at the end"

...which did what? prove his authority perhaps...

Miracles of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gospels are all we have, though. Therefore, given that's the way Jesus is presented, that's the Jesus with which we deal. I have studied Jesus' miracles far beyond the limited scope of Wikipedia. While it does present a fairly concise survey of the miracles, it does not provide an in-depth theological analysis or textual exegesis of them. The miracles prove nothing. So what?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Why does Jesus have to have done something "remarkable" in order to be considered God Incarnate? His birth was humble, his life was humble, his death was humble. He was, in every way, like we are...
I suspect that the other religious figures you mention are considered to be deific in some sense.

Actually, the majority were as humble as, if not more humble than the Jesus character, however, they are seen as saints, not deified to the extent the Romans and early church did Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, the majority were as humble as, if not more humble than the Jesus character.

Again: What's your point? I don't have a problem with the avatars for Divinity that other religions use, just as I don't have a problem with Xy's avatars. If the Hindus wanna come up with some ancient guy named Clem Kadiddlehopper, and claim that he's some sort of bridge between humanity and Divinity, who am I to complain? So be it.

 

[waitasec]

The miracles prove nothing. So what?

exactly...

 

[Jacksnyte]

Again: What's your point? I don't have a problem with the avatars for Divinity that other religions use, just as I don't have a problem with Xy's avatars. If the Hindus wanna come up with some ancient guy named Clem Kadiddlehopper, and claim that he's some sort of bridge between humanity and Divinity, who am I to complain? So be it.

I am just rather amazed at how people will latch onto one figure among thousands and act as if that figure is unique! I'm not claiming only Christians do this, they are just the most visible.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

There is no "if". The point is that Jesus was not God incarnate. Only by means of dreams and visions God makes Himself known in flesh. Read Numbers 12:6.

 

[Ben Masada]

But the account has to be scrutinized within its own context. Give me a gospel to discuss.

All the four gospels speak of Jesus' anxieties at the Gethsemane. Take, for example, Luke 22:40-44.

 

[fallingblood]

All the four gospels speak of Jesus' anxieties at the Gethsemane. Take, for example, Luke 22:40-44.

There is one problem with those verses. Scholars, for the most part, agree that they were added at a later date. For a brief summary as to why:

1) It interrupts the flow of the section.
2) It portrays Jesus in a way that he is not seen throughout the rest of the Gospel. And
3) It simply doesn't look like Luke.

 

[fallingblood]

There is no "if". The point is that Jesus was not God incarnate. Only by means of dreams and visions God makes Himself known in flesh. Read Numbers 12:6.

The argument really fails since you are assuming one set of "scriptures" is better than another set. They both can be dismissed as religious myth.

 

[Ben Masada]

I never said that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews. Also, Pilate was never a king.

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.
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.

Pilate was a Governor but he answered to the king or Roman Emperor. And, besides, he had a natural hunger to nail a Jew on a cross. If you think I am mudslinging the idiots of today, I have a question for you. Why did Pilate crucify Jesus, not because some idiots were proclaiming him king od the Jews? Why preachers of the gospels today are still preaching that Jesus was king of the Jews, when they themselves know that this was not true? Because there is no difference between the idiots of then and thoses of today. And about taking me nowhere, I don't care.

 

[Ben Masada]

The argument really fails since you are assuming one set of "scriptures" is better than another set. They both can be dismissed as religious myth.

No, they cannot. Myths are not true facts. Dream is something that happens to every one that goes to sleep.

 

[fallingblood]

No, they cannot. Myths are not true facts. Dream is something that happens to every one that goes to sleep.

Myths can portray truths. And we I wasn't talk about dreams. I was talking about both sets of scripture, the Jewish scripture and the Christian scripture, being myth, or that they could be considered as such.

 

[Ben Masada]

There is one problem with those verses. Scholars, for the most part, agree that they were added at a later date. For a brief summary as to why:

1) It interrupts the flow of the section.
2) It portrays Jesus in a way that he is not seen throughout the rest of the Gospel. And
3) It simply doesn't look like Luke.

It is possible. But don't bet too high on the opinions of "scholars". They are simply the opinions of another man. You can read the text yourself and discuss according to your finds.

 

[Ben Masada]

Myths can portray truths. And we I wasn't talk about dreams. I was talking about both sets of scripture, the Jewish scripture and the Christian scripture, being myth, or that they could be considered as such.

Bring up what you think is a myth in the Jewish Scriptures and we will discuss about it. Something could be from the myths of other nations. Then, I'll explain to you why it was added to the text.