The Gethesemane Myth

[Ben Masada]

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

Yes, they are in terms of being the king of kings.

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.

In that case, Josephus was a liar. He said that Pilate was the most cruel of all the Roman Governors. That none crucified more Jews than Pilate. And that thousands
of Jews were crucified only in the First Century ACE.

Primarily, the High Priest was given charge of that area.

That's an antisemitic statement, as a result of anti-Jewish hatred. The Jewish leaders would never ask enemies occupiers of our Land to crucify a fellow Jew who had come to confirm the most important item in the life of the a Jew: God's Law.
(Mat. 5:17-19)

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.

Again, you are, in other words, claiming that Josephus was a liar, because he, in fact, uses the very word "ruthless" to describe Pilate.

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.

If Pilate did not crucify Jesus for being proclaimed king of the Jews, why would he write the reason on that plaque and nail it on Jesus' cross? Now, I agree that indeed, he would have been an idiot.

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.

Then, he crucified Jesus and let the criminal BarRabas go free. See now how idiot the NT makes Pilate to be? According to Josephus, he would have crucified both.

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.

None of the above was true, unless you are ready to admit contradictions in your NT, because according to Luke 17:21, Jesus declared loud and clear that the Kingdom of God is esoteric. As he said, "within ourselves." Then, with regards to what you claim he said that Rome would be destroyed or disappear, I would like to read that quote myself. Can you show me? Of course not! You are reading your own words into the text.

 

[Quagmire]

In that case, Josephus was a liar. He said that Pilate was the most cruel of all the Roman Governors. That none crucified more Jews than Pilate. And that thousands
of Jews were crucified only in the First Century ACE.
.

Where does Josephus say this?

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

You continue wrong and completely out of logic. Yes, it is a contradiction because you pretend to know the historical of the NT when you don't. Here is the information we get from the statement that Paul was a ringleader of the Nazarenes. After 14 years he returned to Jerusalem and was finally arrested in the Temple. Then, the High Priest Ananias took him to Court before Felix the Governor and enlisted the services of an Athorney called Tertullus who recognized Paul and that the Nazarenes had helped him escape to Tarsus by obliterating justice. That complicated the situation of James and the status of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. (Acts 24:1,5)

Galatians 2:8. It specifically states that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Wrong! The statement is written between parenthesis, as an evidence that Paul was lying. And as I said, he is the one self-naming himself apostle of the Gentiles. I remember to have asked you to quote when did he ever decided to go to the Gentiles. You haven't answered my question.

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.

They were Jews converted from the Gentiles who had joined the Sect of the Nazarenes. Read Acts 21:20

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.

No, you are totally wrong again. You think perhaps that because you are dialoguing with a Jew, that you can pocket me in for not knowing your NT. Don't fool yourself. "I have read your book." Read Acts 15:7. Peter said that "in much longer time ago God had chosen him that the Gentiles, by his mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." It means, "and not someone else." It means, "That this Paul was an impostor."

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.

What! You see in Galatians that Paul is explicitly called the apostle to the circumcised, or Jews? Now, can you see how confused and illogical you are? Quote it and I will become a Christian today. You don't have to become Jewish, but at least admit that you don't know how to handle your NT.

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.

Because he had endangered the Nazarenes' status quo in Jerusalem by causing such a havoc as to put the local Jews after him to arrest him, and James helped him to escape to Tarsus. (Acts 9:26-31)

Scholarly consensus or opinions of another man? In the preface to his second letter to Timothy in my KJV translation, it says that Paul wrote that letter to Timothy in the year 64 ACE from Rome, just before his death. And he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah and resurrected, according to his gospel. It means that there was another gospel being preached quite different from his. That's the gospel of the Nazarenes.

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.

No, it was not. You might succeed to deceive someone else who knows less than you do but not me. It was no argument for the idea that the resurrection was a fact because he started with the conditional "if". "If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." He thought that with his exaggeration or paroxism he would persuade his listeners to stick with him.

That is such illogical garbage that it is hard to even find a want to argue.

That's exactly why we should stop wasting each other's time. You are too illogical with the garbage you want me to cosider for a response and I am wasting my time because you have no training or initiation in NT studies.

You have never proven that Paul was a Christian.

Look at this illogical garbage you have just said above. Read again Acts 11:26. It says in there that Christians started to be called Christians in Antioch, because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. If Christians started with Paul, what could Paul be, a member of a Voodoo cult? Be logical for a change!

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.

He was. He used to be. That's past tense. But he quit being Jewish when he founded Christianity. Read again Acts 11:26.

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

Wrong! Christians were never a sect of Judaism. Christians were a sect of Hellenism. They preached a Politheism of three gods, being one of them in flesh. There is no such a thing in Judaism. Only in Greek Mythology.

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).

The Nazarenes yes, they constituted a sect of Judaism. There was never such a thing as a hyphenated Jewish-Christian community.

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.

I can't take it anymore!

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).

There was no longer need to call Paul's followers Christians. They had started with Paul in Antioch. Read again Acts 11:26.

 

[Ben Masada]

Where does Josephus say this?

In his book, "The War of the Jews." Check it out the chapter about Pilate if you have access to it.

 

[Quagmire]

In his book, "The War of the Jews." Check it out the chapter about Pilate if you have access to it.

I just spent about a half hour looking for anything in there that resembles what you were saying.

So far, no luck.

edit: it's actually called "The Jewish War" btw.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

Anyone can have a dream about God. What's the big deal? But only a Jewish prophet is trained about what to do with the message.

 

[Ben Masada]

In other words, they were ... scholars, whom we have been warned not to trust. Wonderful.

There were false prophets too.

 

[Ben Masada]

You're a Jew and you don't subscribe to Talmud???

I do read the Talmud but I never use it when dealing with Christians. What for? What can I prove to Christians with the Talmud? The Talmud is for Jews. With Christians, only sola Scriptura.

 

[Quagmire]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-2.htm starting at Chapt 10, paragraph 2.

Nope, doesn't look like there's anything in there anywhere about how many people Pilate had crucified.

Thanks for yet another wild goose chase Ben.

 

[sojourner]

I do read the Talmud but I never use it when dealing with Christians. What for? What can I prove to Christians with the Talmud? The Talmud is for Jews. With Christians, only sola Scriptura.

Not true. I'm not a subscriber to sola scriptura.

 

[sojourner]

Anyone can have a dream about God. What's the big deal? But only a Jewish prophet is trained about what to do with the message.

That has nothing to do with the issue. You mentioned that faith wasn't worth much. I said that you have faith in God being manifest in dreams.

 

[sojourner]

There were false prophets too.

Again, evasive. You said not to trust scholars, yet you trust true prophets, who were scholars, because they studied. False prophets is evasive.

 

[fallingblood]

I do read the Talmud but I never use it when dealing with Christians. What for? What can I prove to Christians with the Talmud? The Talmud is for Jews. With Christians, only sola Scriptura.

Very few Christians are sola Scripture. The largest denomination, the Catholicism, subscribes to both tradition and scripture. The Lutheran Church, which claims sola Scripture, also relies on tradition (for instance, baby baptism is a tradition which is not actually attested to in the Bible, which is only one example). There are a few American originated denominations that claim sola Scripture (Assemblies of God, Seventh Day Adventists, etc); however, their interpretations rely on tradition, and even some of their ideas, such as the birth of Jesus being on December 25th.

So saying Christians are only sola Scripture is very misleading, and in fact simply erroneous.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, they are in terms of being the king of kings.

So, if they are interchangeable, please show where the Emperor was called the King, and more specifically, the King of the Jews?

In that case, Josephus was a liar. He said that Pilate was the most cruel of all the Roman Governors. That none crucified more Jews than Pilate. And that thousands
of Jews were crucified only in the First Century ACE.

So Josephus is a liar because he disagrees (which, like Quagmire stated, isn't in Josephus) with your idea? Maybe you are just mistaken. And how does that even counter what I said? I was only talking about Jerusalem. And really, I wasn't even talking about Josephus. I didn't even mention him in that context.

That's an antisemitic statement, as a result of anti-Jewish hatred. The Jewish leaders would never ask enemies occupiers of our Land to crucify a fellow Jew who had come to confirm the most important item in the life of the a Jew: God's Law.
(Mat. 5:17-19)

That is not an anti-semitic statement. That is a ridiculous claim on your part.

As for the Jewish leaders to ask the Romans to punish a Jew, Jesus son of Ananias. I never stated that the High Priest turned Jesus over to be crucified (I actually said nothing at all along those lines). As with Jesus son of Ananias, Jesus was turned over to the Romans to be punished. In the case of Jesus, crucifixion was the judgement that Rome saw fit.

You really are trying to argue against something I never said though, and that is simply ridiculous to do.

Again, you are, in other words, claiming that Josephus was a liar, because he, in fact, uses the very word "ruthless" to describe Pilate.

Where did I say anything about Josephus? Nowhere. So how can I call him a liar (which you actually did in your response to me), if I never mention him? More so, did I not say that Pilate may have been ruthless? I never stated otherwise. I simply added that he wasn't an idiot.

You really need to read what I say, and then argue agains that. Don't try to put words in my mouth, and then offer a response to the fictional idea.

If Pilate did not crucify Jesus for being proclaimed king of the Jews, why would he write the reason on that plaque and nail it on Jesus' cross? Now, I agree that indeed, he would have been an idiot.

To show that Jesus was guilty of sedition. It was a mocking term.

The crime that Jesus committed, as I've already explained, was causing a scene in the Temple (symbolically destroying it), during Passover (which could easily have led to a revolt or riot) and preaching that the Kingdom of God would replace the Kingdom of this world (which was Rome).

Then, he crucified Jesus and let the criminal BarRabas go free. See now how idiot the NT makes Pilate to be? According to Josephus, he would have crucified both.

You need to read the NT without such a heavy bias. Why does the NT try to make Pilate out to be the good guy? To the point that he tries to find a way to set Jesus free, but is not able to because of the Jews? Is that actually historical, or is it trying to relay a different message?

The answers are quite easy. If you read the Gospels, Mark to John (you can then read some other Gospels such as the "Gnostic" Gospels) and see an increase in the amount of time spent defending Pilate, and demonizing the Jews. There is a clear progression from Mark to John on how good Pilate is displayed, and how bad the Jews are displayed. It all has to do with the historical context.

The Jews were pushing the Christian sect more and more out of Judaism (they were in effect starting to split). So the Christians demonized the Jews in return. It was a back and forth thing.

At the same time, they made Pilate look better and better (later tradition even has him becoming a Christian, and even a saint in some sects), to show that Christians are an enemy of the state, that even their leader was seen to be innocent by Pilate.

You try to take the Gospels too literally, and that is a huge problem here.

None of the above was true, unless you are ready to admit contradictions in your NT, because according to Luke 17:21, Jesus declared loud and clear that the Kingdom of God is esoteric. As he said, "within ourselves." Then, with regards to what you claim he said that Rome would be destroyed or disappear, I would like to read that quote myself. Can you show me? Of course not! You are reading your own words into the text.

Have I ever said that the NT doesn't contain contradictions? Not once. Yes, the NT, and the Bible as a whole (including the OT) contain many many contradictions. It doesn't bother me at all.

As for the Kingdom of God, you need to actually look as to what it meant in the first century. Luke was written well after Jesus died, and the Kingdom hadn't arrived. So he reinterpreted what Jesus meant. John does the same. Later Christians still do the same. However, we have to place the phrase in a historic context.

Scholars agree, based on Jewish works around that time, that the Kingdom of God was a Kingdom that would be set up on Earth. Basically, the idea was of a new Israel, such as when the Hebrews first entered the Promised Land and it seemed as if God just gave it to them.

We even see this supported in Josephus, when he describes other so called Messiahs, or prophets who would go out into the wilderness and plan on marching on Jerusalem (in non-violent marches). A great example of this is the leader who is called the Egyptian.

 

[fallingblood]

You continue wrong and completely out of logic. Yes, it is a contradiction because you pretend to know the historical of the NT when you don't. Here is the information we get from the statement that Paul was a ringleader of the Nazarenes. After 14 years he returned to Jerusalem and was finally arrested in the Temple. Then, the High Priest Ananias took him to Court before Felix the Governor and enlisted the services of an Athorney called Tertullus who recognized Paul and that the Nazarenes had helped him escape to Tarsus by obliterating justice. That complicated the situation of James and the status of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. (Acts 24:1,5)

Again, you can only point to once that the title, Sect of the Nazarenes is used. We are not told anything about this sect accept that Paul was the ringleader of said sect. Everything else that is stated is about Paul, not the sect of the Nazarenes. So no, there is no contradiction.

Wrong! The statement is written between parenthesis, as an evidence that Paul was lying. And as I said, he is the one self-naming himself apostle of the Gentiles. I remember to have asked you to quote when did he ever decided to go to the Gentiles. You haven't answered my question.

What are you talking about? Written between parenthesis? What version are you even looking at? It specifically states that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. There are no parenthesis.

I also told you how he went to the Gentiles. You simply ignored it. That is not debating, that is simply being dismissive, which only makes it look as if you really have no logical arguments.

They were Jews converted from the Gentiles who had joined the Sect of the Nazarenes. Read Acts 21:20

Maybe you should actually read what was said. Can you point out at all when the term Nazarene is used? No you can't because it is never said anywhere near that verse.

No, you are totally wrong again. You think perhaps that because you are dialoguing with a Jew, that you can pocket me in for not knowing your NT. Don't fool yourself. "I have read your book." Read Acts 15:7. Peter said that "in much longer time ago God had chosen him that the Gentiles, by his mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." It means, "and not someone else." It means, "That this Paul was an impostor."

It doesn't say anything like that. You are reading something that simply isn't there and you are ignoring the complete context of the verse. More so, you are ignoring what Paul said, and again, Paul is more accurate as he was there.

More so if you continue reading that chapter, starting at verse 22, you will see that Paul and Barnabas are then given the lead in preaching to the Gentiles. So I would assume you don't know the NT (not my NT, I'm not a Christian) because you have consistently shown that you only pick and choose what you want to see in the NT.

What! You see in Galatians that Paul is explicitly called the apostle to the circumcised, or Jews? Now, can you see how confused and illogical you are? Quote it and I will become a Christian today. You don't have to become Jewish, but at least admit that you don't know how to handle your NT.

Slip of the fingers. I obviously meant Peter instead of Paul in that sentence, as I've only stated the same thing over and over again, and I've shown in Galatians where it states what I'm saying.

Because he had endangered the Nazarenes' status quo in Jerusalem by causing such a havoc as to put the local Jews after him to arrest him, and James helped him to escape to Tarsus. (Acts 9:26-31)

That doesn't even make sense in regards to what I said.

Scholarly consensus or opinions of another man? In the preface to his second letter to Timothy in my KJV translation, it says that Paul wrote that letter to Timothy in the year 64 ACE from Rome, just before his death. And he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah and resurrected, according to his gospel. It means that there was another gospel being preached quite different from his. That's the gospel of the Nazarenes.

There is your problem. You are using a horrible translation. The KJV is outdated, is based on bad manuscripts, and simply is of little use. Scholarship has greatly advanced since that poor translation. Maybe you should update just a little.

And again, the consensus is that II Timothy is not written by Paul. It disagrees even with Paul. There simply is no debate here (especially when your sources are so out of date).

No, it was not. You might succeed to deceive someone else who knows less than you do but not me. It was no argument for the idea that the resurrection was a fact because he started with the conditional "if". "If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." He thought that with his exaggeration or paroxism he would persuade his listeners to stick with him.

Read the entire chapter. You need to take the entire thing in context. You simply taking one lone verse and claiming it means something when you have taken it out of context is no argument at all.

That's exactly why we should stop wasting each other's time. You are too illogical with the garbage you want me to cosider for a response and I am wasting my time because you have no training or initiation in NT studies.

I'm going to college to get a doctorates in NT studies. You have no basis for your claim here.

Look at this illogical garbage you have just said above. Read again Acts 11:26. It says in there that Christians started to be called Christians in Antioch, because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. If Christians started with Paul, what could Paul be, a member of a Voodoo cult? Be logical for a change!

You should take your own advice. Acts 11:26 doesn't say that they were called Christians because of Paul being there for a year. It simply states that in Antioch they were first called Christians. As I've said before, it is a retrojecting a term from the authors time to the time in which he is writing about. More so, I've explained all of this before. You simply aren't reading what I wrote.

He was. He used to be. That's past tense. But he quit being Jewish when he founded Christianity. Read again Acts 11:26.

You read Acts. You read Paul. Do some reading of your own for once. Paul never states he was a Christian. He never states he founded Christianity (the term Christianity doesn't even appear in the Bible, or even in the first century). Paul states, throughout his letters, that he is a Jew. He never states anything else. If you read Paul, which you simply haven't, you would know this.

Wrong! Christians were never a sect of Judaism. Christians were a sect of Hellenism. They preached a Politheism of three gods, being one of them in flesh. There is no such a thing in Judaism. Only in Greek Mythology.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The idea of the Trinity (one God in three forms, which is monism, not polytheism), did not start until quite some time later. Paul never mentions it. And yes, the Christians began as a sect of Judaism. Scholars agree on this point.

The Nazarenes yes, they constituted a sect of Judaism. There was never such a thing as a hyphenated Jewish-Christian community.

We have already gone over this, and you simply don't want to even try to comprehend what I'm saying. Again, for the nth time, Jewish-Christian is a modern term by scholars to distinguish a group in that time period. As for the Nazarenes again, we know virtually nothing about them until the 3rd or 4th century.

I can't take it anymore!

Well take some time to actually read what I've said instead of twisting and fabricating ridiculous statements that have never come out of my mouth. Stop dismissing, and ignoring what I've stated. And for once, actually take the time to read and comprehend what I say.

There was no longer need to call Paul's followers Christians. They had started with Paul in Antioch. Read again Acts 11:26.

It is extremely obvious that you have read none of the scholarship on the subject, or even want to try to understand the subject at all. All you can do is repeat the same tired statements based on your preconceived biases, which really are based on ignorance. You need to read Paul if you want to continue this discussion. Acts does not portray Paul accurately. And maybe, just maybe, you could take a little time and read what I've said instead of just ignoring my comments, and repeating yourself over and over again.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Not at all. You are correct in saying the Jews expectations about the Messiah were not met in Jesus. This, however, does not mean he was not the promised Messiah. To the contrary, the Jews expectations were based on mistaken beliefs and expectations of a political Messiah. So they rejected Jesus, just as Isaiah foretold regarding the true Messiah (Isaiah 53:3,4 Acts 4:27,28) Even Jesus own (jewish) disciples had mistaken expectations regarding him. The One who anointed Jesus as the Messiah is Jehovah, and any person who wants life must come to God through his true Messiah, whether Jew or otherwise. (Acts 4:12)

 

[sojourner]

the Jews expectations were based on mistaken beliefs and expectations of a political Messiah.

You'd have to ask the Jews whether their expectations are mistaken.

 

[fallingblood]

Not at all. You are correct in saying the Jews expectations about the Messiah were not met in Jesus. This, however, does not mean he was not the promised Messiah. To the contrary, the Jews expectations were based on mistaken beliefs and expectations of a political Messiah. So they rejected Jesus, just as Isaiah foretold regarding the true Messiah (Isaiah 53:3,4 Acts 4:27,28) Even Jesus own (jewish) disciples had mistaken expectations regarding him. The One who anointed Jesus as the Messiah is Jehovah, and any person who wants life must come to God through his true Messiah, whether Jew or otherwise. (Acts 4:12)

Since Jesus failed the Messianic Expectations, he is not the Jewish Messiah. He can be the Christian Messiah, but that is something different.

Also, if you read Isaiah 53:3,4, it never says anything about the Messiah.

 

[fallingblood]

Scholarly consensus or opinions of another man? In the preface to his second letter to Timothy in my KJV translation, it says that Paul wrote that letter to Timothy in the year 64 ACE from Rome, just before his death. And he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah and resurrected, according to his gospel. It means that there was another gospel being preached quite different from his. That's the gospel of the Nazarenes.

I just want to show the hypocrisy in your logic. You dismiss the scholarly consensus as opinions of another man (which really is not what it is). You then take the opinion of outdated scholars, and argue that they are right (because the preface in the KJV of Timothy was written by a scholar). Now why would you do that? Because those scholars agree with your opinion, and just that. That is being a hypocrite.

 

[Ben Masada]

I just want to show the hypocrisy in your logic. You dismiss the scholarly consensus as opinions of another man (which really is not what it is). You then take the opinion of outdated scholars, and argue that they are right (because the preface in the KJV of Timothy was written by a scholar). Now why would you do that? Because those scholars agree with your opinion, and just that. That is being a hypocrite.

I turn to you the charge of hypocrisy because the most important item in my post above has nothing to do with scholars but with your own NT. You can't see because you don't like to read quotations presented as evidences by a partner-in debate. Go back and open your NT in II Timothy and read what it is in there. Paul is confessing, almost at his death bed in Rome, that Jesus was of the lineage of David, what he meant by the Messiah, and that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel. That's in II Timothy 2:8. Then, if you want to apologize for name-calling me hypocrite, the apology will be accepted. In fact, I usually don't put too much weight in the testimonies of scholars. I know how to go about the Bible.