• 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
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.
The Roman Emperor was not a king. He was an Emperor. The two are not interchangeable.

Pilate may have had a natural hunger to nail a Jew on a cross; however, for the most part, he did very little in Jerusalem. Primarily, the High Priest was given charge of that area. It was only during major festivals that Pilate would really have bothered with the area. More so though, we see Pilate backing down on a few occasions because of the after effects that could have been caused by his actions. He may have been ruthless, but he was no idiot.

As for why Pilate had Jesus crucified. It had nothing to do with the claim that Jesus was the King of the Jews. That could have been written off as insanity, especially if Jesus himself wasn't saying it. The reason he was crucified is because he caused an act of public disturbance (the scene at the Temple) during Passover, when the area was already a tinderbox for revolt. Add that to the message Jesus was proclaiming, that the Kingdom of God would be set-up on Earth (while at the same time implying that Rome would then be destroyed or disappear), made him a very likely target. It was in Pilate's best interest to get rid of Jesus (it would also have been in the best interest of the High Priest) in order to prevent a potential revolt.

As for why ministers state such; that is personal matters. However, it is not an idea that is all encompassing of Christianity.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
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.
I generally take the scholarly consensus to be correct, or more correct than the opinions of laymen. The reasons are simple. They study this stuff for a living. They have gone through the requirements (the schooling and such). And they can read the text in the original verses. More so, they can point to copies of the text that do not contain the said verses, and determine if they are original to the text or later additions.

As for reading the text myself, the verses do seem out of place, which is another reason I agree with the scholars.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
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.
That would probably be best for another thread.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
Jesus is unique in his cultural milieu, just as other people are unique in their cultural contexts. In the end, the mythic idea of humanity joined to Divinity is the same.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
Your right! There is no "if." The point is that Jesus is God Incarnate. Only by means of faith being a participatory exercise does God make God's Self known in flesh. Read John 1.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
So is the corpus of Talmud... Don't bet too high on the opinions of those "scholars," either.

The "opinions" of scholars weigh heavier because they are formulated upon the best discovery of fact.:rolleyes: You'll have to come up with something better than that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
Which would be a ... scholarly pursuit. I thought we shouldn't trust the "scholars"...:cool:
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Can you show a quote anywhere that Caesar was considered the king of the Jews? The Emperors were never given that title.

Read John 29:15. The guy who wrote the gospel of John, falsely accuses the Jewish authorities as of saying that their king was Caesar and not Jesus. Obviously for him Caesar was king of the Jews

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?

Probably because Herod's sons were not as friendly to Caesar as Herod had been.

"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.

Wrong! The term "Palestine" started with the Romans and finished in 1948. As Land of Israel, it was for over 4000 years. Since Joshua got in Canaan with the Israelites and until today, except for that break.

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.

I never said that Paul wrote the book of Acts. Luke did it. And if it contradicts Paul, too bad! Luke was a disciple of his. One more reason that the book was not Divinely inspired.

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.

In that case, he was a psychopatic liar because, according to Acts 22:25-28 he declared to be a free born Roman citizen.

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.

Paul preached about Jesus as son of God. This is Greek Mythology. Therefore, he was a Hellenistic Jews. And about his being a Pharisee, I am Jewish and I have a course in Judaica for the period between 200 years BCE and 200 ACE, the time for the Gemara. The Pharisees constituted a Jewish Sect of the elite. It was absolutely forbidden for them to accept a Hellenized Jew into their ranks.

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).

You are contradicting yourself. In the same paragraph you say that any information about the Sect of the Nazarenes, one gets from the 3rd or 4th Century. Then, you even quote that Paul had been accused as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes.

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.

Good! Now, quote to me when did Paul ever go to the Gentiles. Just be reminded that synagogues are not places for Gentiles.

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.

Wrong! Read Acts 15:7. It says in there that Peter was the Apostle of the Gentiles and not Paul. If Paul says the opposite somewhere else, it is because he was a self-
appointed apostle. There were 12 Apostles and not 13.

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.
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.

That was only to get rid of Paul and see him out of Jerusalem because the Nazarenes were afraid Paul would cause another havoc similar to the one he had caused 14 years before, when James had to help him escape back to Tarsus.

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.

Of course! He himself confessed to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had resurrected according to his gospel. (II Tim. 2:8)

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.

Yes, but in the previous verse we can see that he was ready to make a carnival out of his life if the dead did not resurrect, as he said "let us eat and dring for tomorrow
we die." That's conditional faith worthy menstrual rags.

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.

And you ignore the obvious. If with Paul Christians started being called Christians for the first time, and Christianity is composed of Christians, what do you want me to say that Christians come from Zoroastrianism or Islam or Buddhism, etc, and not from Christianity? It's proven 100 percent that Paul was a Christian and that from Christians came Christianity. And I hope this subject is over. You are completely out of Logic.
 
Last edited:

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
So is the corpus of Talmud... Don't bet too high on the opinions of those "scholars," either.

The "opinions" of scholars weigh heavier because they are formulated upon the best discovery of fact.:rolleyes: You'll have to come up with something better than that.

Try me. I go according to the Scriptures. Isn't it something better than that?
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
And what is revealed in dream is not "true fact," but mythic interpretation.

I agree. But the Prophets were trained in schools of prophets to turn the mysticism of their dreams and visions into current facts of the time and man's behaviour.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Your right! There is no "if." The point is that Jesus is God Incarnate. Only by means of faith being a participatory exercise does God make God's Self known in flesh. Read John 1.

Don't bet too much on faith because almost a thusand of the faithful of Jim Jones were poisoned to death. Try to learn more about the facts. Faith is too misleading. Where faith abounds knowledge moribunds. And for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6)
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
I generally take the scholarly consensus to be correct, or more correct than the opinions of laymen. The reasons are simple. They study this stuff for a living. They have gone through the requirements (the schooling and such). And they can read the text in the original verses. More so, they can point to copies of the text that do not contain the said verses, and determine if they are original to the text or later additions.

As for reading the text myself, the verses do seem out of place, which is another reason I agree with the scholars.

Well, suit yourself.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I agree. But the Prophets were trained in schools of prophets to turn the mysticism of their dreams and visions into current facts of the time and man's behaviour.
In other words, they were ... scholars, whom we have been warned not to trust. Wonderful.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Don't bet too much on faith because almost a thusand of the faithful of Jim Jones were poisoned to death. Try to learn more about the facts. Faith is too misleading. Where faith abounds knowledge moribunds. And for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6)
yet you seem to have faith in God manifesting in dreams. You're talking out both sides of your mouth. It's destroying what's left of your credibility.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Read John 29:15. The guy who wrote the gospel of John, falsely accuses the Jewish authorities as of saying that their king was Caesar and not Jesus. Obviously for him Caesar was king of the Jews
John 19:15. It has to be read in both a historical context as well as a textual context. The whole purpose of the text was to demonize the Jewish people (or a group of specific Jewish people). It should also be noticed in verse 16, the author of John implies that the Jews, not the Romans crucified Jesus ("Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified." Them has to be understood as Chief Priests (the Jews)). Obviously, there are some historical inaccuracies for the sole purpose of demonizing the Jewish people.

More so, we see that statement (in John 19:15) occurring in none of the other Gospels. So it is a single attestation, which is not the most credible. Especially when we see so much anti-semitism in this Gospel (which John 19:15) only supports.

Basically, the author of John is doing nothing more than mudslinging. It is very similar to when you call others idiots for having different beliefs.
Probably because Herod's sons were not as friendly to Caesar as Herod had been.
Herod Antipas was quite friendly to Caesar. He built a new capital in Galilee in honor of Caesar. He did much of the same things that his father did (just on a smaller scale as he only had a fraction of the land that Herod the Great did).
Wrong! The term "Palestine" started with the Romans and finished in 1948. As Land of Israel, it was for over 4000 years. Since Joshua got in Canaan with the Israelites and until today, except for that break.
You didn't even look at my source did you? I am assuming not as it explained what I've been saying.

Really though, if the term Palestine started with the Romans, my initial statement was correct anyway.

More so, if we read Herodotus (the 5th century B.C.E.), we see the term Palestine being used for that general area. Either way though, Palestine was the correct term.
I never said that Paul wrote the book of Acts. Luke did it. And if it contradicts Paul, too bad! Luke was a disciple of his. One more reason that the book was not Divinely inspired.
Luke never wrote the book of Acts. In fact, the book of Acts, as well as Luke, were written anonymously. It wasn't until around the middle of the second century that titles were given to the books (as well as the other Gospels). In addition, the books themselves never state who wrote them, or even clues as to who did so.

As to the figure of Luke, he is assumed to be a follower of Paul because of the book of Colossians, which is actually a book forged in the name of Paul, states such. So it really isn't a good match. As for Paul, he only mentions Luke once, in a list of various people. So Luke even being a follower of Paul is iffy.

To sum up, Luke did not write Acts of Luke. It was a later day attribution really based on nothing. The writer was not a follower of Paul (which should be obvious as they get so much wrong about Paul, and do not even seem to be aware that Paul ever wrote letters).

Since Luke is not the author, and the author was not a follower of Paul, it means that we should take Paul to be more accurate when in contrast to Acts. Paul was there, the author of Acts wasn't.

Again, Paul should be trusted over Acts. Paul was there, the author of Acts was not.
In that case, he was a psychopatic liar because, according to Acts 22:25-28 he declared to be a free born Roman citizen.
See above. I've explained multiple times why Acts is not accurate. Why Acts contradicts what Paul himself stated. What Acts should not be trusted over Paul.
Paul preached about Jesus as son of God. This is Greek Mythology. Therefore, he was a Hellenistic Jews. And about his being a Pharisee, I am Jewish and I have a course in Judaica for the period between 200 years BCE and 200 ACE, the time for the Gemara. The Pharisees constituted a Jewish Sect of the elite. It was absolutely forbidden for them to accept a Hellenized Jew into their ranks.
Lets start with the idea of Jesus as son of God. Paul states that Jesus was born of the flesh (Galatians 4:4; Romans 9:3-5).

For Paul, Jesus was not considered the son of God until after his death. And this is much like the adoption theology found in Psalms 2:7. Not that Jesus was the literal son of God, but was adopted. It was the same idea that was used when naming an anointed one of God (Messiah), or king.

Greek mythology was quite different. It was the idea that the father was a god. Not so with Jesus. And if that is your defense for Paul being a Hellenistic Jew, then you really have nothing to stand on. Especially since there isn't really a clear line between Hellenistic Judaism and Judaism as a whole (I would call it Palestinian Judaism, but I know you object to the term Palestine). One can even find hellenistic influences in the current Hebrew scripture as well as other books considered scripture in the first century (such as I Enoch). Daniel and Proverbs are good examples.

As for Paul being a Pharisee, all we have to go on is what he states. Both Acts and Paul state the same thing, that he was a Pharisee. If we are to accept Acts, as you are inclined to do so, Acts 22:3 states that Paul studied under Gamaliel (who we both should be able to agree was a Pharisee). That would mean that Paul would have grown up wherever Gamaliel was (in Judea). Now, I don't count this to be factual; however, I point at it because Acts, a book you rely on quite a bit, states such.

More so, it is important to note that during this time, that of Paul, we only have to sources written by Pharisees. That of Paul, and that of Josephus. So the information we have is quite sparse.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
You are contradicting yourself. In the same paragraph you say that any information about the Sect of the Nazarenes, one gets from the 3rd or 4th Century. Then, you even quote that Paul had been accused as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes.
What information do we gleam by the simple statement that Paul was the ringleader of the Nazarenes? Absolutely none. So no, there was no contradiction. The information we get about the Nazarenes comes from the 3rd or 4th century.
Good! Now, quote to me when did Paul ever go to the Gentiles. Just be reminded that synagogues are not places for Gentiles.
Galatians 2:8. It specifically states that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. More so, you have to realize that within the synagogue, there would have also been those known as God-fearers. They were not Jews, but followed Judaism to some point. As in, they were Gentiles who followed Judaism without converting.
Wrong! Read Acts 15:7. It says in there that Peter was the Apostle of the Gentiles and not Paul. If Paul says the opposite somewhere else, it is because he was a self-
appointed apostle. There were 12 Apostles and not 13.
Read it again. It simply stated that for awhile, Peter went to some Gentiles to preach. That does not make him the Apostle to the Gentiles. Especially since we see Peter, for the majority of his time, preaching to Jews. You need to take the entire story in context. More so, it never states that Paul was not. More so, we see in Galatians, that Paul is explicitly called the Apostle to the circumcised, or Jews.

And really, there were many apostles. Apostle and disciple are not synonymous.
That was only to get rid of Paul and see him out of Jerusalem because the Nazarenes were afraid Paul would cause another havoc similar to the one he had caused 14 years before, when James had to help him escape back to Tarsus.
Why would the Nazarenes want to get rid of the ringleader of the Nazarenes? Acts states that Paul was the ringleader of the Nazarenes. So either you are picking and choosing what parts of Acts you want to accept, or you're wrong.
Of course! He himself confessed to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had resurrected according to his gospel. (II Tim. 2:8)
II Timothy was not written by Paul. That is the scholarly consensus. And just comparing II Timothy to any authentic letter of Paul, you can see why very quickly.
Yes, but in the previous verse we can see that he was ready to make a carnival out of his life if the dead did not resurrect, as he said "let us eat and dring for tomorrow
we die." That's conditional faith worthy menstrual rags.
Again, you are not reading it in context. You are taking one verse, out of context, and pretending it means something that it doesn't. The context makes clear that the idea you are proposing was a bad idea and should be stopped. Chapter 15 of Corinthians affirms that Jesus was in fact crucified, and more so, that it signaled the beginning of the general crucifixion. It was an argument for the idea that the resurrection was a fact. You have to read the whole thing in context.
And you ignore the obvious. If with Paul Christians started being called Christians for the first time, and Christianity is composed of Christians, what do you want me to say that Christians come from Zoroastrianism or Islam or Buddhism, etc, and not from Christianity? It's proven 100 percent that Paul was a Christian and that from Christians came Christianity. And I hope this subject is over. You are completely out of Logic.
That is such illogical garbage that it is hard to even find a want to argue. You have never proven that Paul was a Christian. In fact, the scholarly consensus was that Paul was a Jew. He himself stated that he was a Jew. Acts states that he was a Jew. Every early source we have about Paul states that he was a Jew.

At that time, Christians were a sect of Judaism. The same way that Pharisees were a sect of Judaism.

I do agree that from Christians came Christianity. However, it was not an automatic thing. Christians existed as a sect of Judaism for around half a century. We even have Jewish-Christian communities existing up to the 4th century. It was only later that Christianity was formed, based on the name of Christians (who were already in existence as a sect of Judaism).

More so, Paul is never called a Christian there. It is simply a side note that this group was first called Christians in Antioch. It doesn't state that Christianity was started there. And in fact, we never hear the term Christianity until the second century. Why? Because it didn't exist until then.

As for the term Christian, scholars agree that it was most likely first used by Roman authorities in order to differentiate this new sect of Jews from other sects. It was most likely a derogatory term. And it wasn't first used until much later (if you notice, Acts doesn't even call the followers of Paul Christians any time else. He simply states that in Antioch, the term Christian was first used. And then the term disappears).

What we actually see is the author of Luke retrojecting a term from his time into the past.
 
Top