The Gethesemane Myth

[Ben Masada]

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.

No, it doesn't. But here is a sylogism: According to a Christian consensus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, whose consensus I am an adept to. Well my friend, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you won't be tempted to assume that he could be an individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21.
Therefore, the third premise of the sylogism is that Israel is the Messiah. And it does make sense, because the individual eventually dies and the Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

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

We are not mistaken about our expectations of the Messiah, because we do not expect an individual Messiah, except for some unlearned ones with still the slavish mentality of the exgyptian exile when they thought Moses had been the one. But Judaism is a progressive religion and the more we study about the issue, the more we learn that the Messiah is collective and not individual. Read the following:

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

 

[Ben Masada]

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)

The irony is that Jesus ended up by being crucified on political charges. Is it enough to show you how much you are mistaken that our expectation of the Messiah was the one of a political Messiah? If Jesus' disciples had that expectation it is because they were unleaned Jews. Read Acts 4:13.
Ben

 

[fallingblood]

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.

If you read II Timothy, and then compare it to the other Pauline Epistles, one thing becomes obvious: they were not written by the same individual.

You quoted a scholar as to show that II Timothy was written by Paul. That is hypocritical as you were the one who dismisses scholars.

The fact is though, the vast majority of scholars, the scholarly consensus, is that II Timothy was not written by Paul. It is in fact a forgery. That is accepted by scholars. I have already explained why above.

So to use II Timothy to support your idea of Paul simply doesn't work as it was not written by Paul. It is a forgery, and that is accepted by nearly all scholars.

 

[fallingblood]

No, it doesn't. But here is a sylogism: According to a Christian consensus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, whose consensus I am an adept to. Well my friend, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you won't be tempted to assume that he could be an individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21.
Therefore, the third premise of the sylogism is that Israel is the Messiah. And it does make sense, because the individual eventually dies and the Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.
Ben

So you take the Christian consensus when it works for you, but not when it doesn't?

Really though, there is no logic in what you're saying. You get Israel to being the Messiah by nothing accept a Christian idea that you manipulate in order to make your point. That simply doesn't work.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn't even make sense in regards to what I said.
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).
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.
I'm going to college to get a doctorates in NT studies. You have no basis for your claim here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

There is no use to this debate when we are using different translations and the time wasted is too long. If you want to continue, use one subject at a time. You cannot post the whole of the NT and expect me to give you a reply to all of it at once. Choose what you want to discuss and concentrate yourself to one paragraph/subject. I have other people to reply to and I can hardly get to them because of your too long a post.
Thank you
Ben

 

[fallingblood]

There is no use to this debate when we are using different translations and the time wasted is too long. If you want to continue, use one subject at a time. You cannot post the whole of the NT and expect me to give you a reply to all of it at once. Choose what you want to discuss and concentrate yourself to one paragraph/subject. I have other people to reply to and I can hardly get to them because of your too long a post.
Thank you
Ben

I'm done then. All you do is dismiss, and dodge. And it is a problem I'm using a better translation? That is just ridiculous.

It obviously is no longer productive to try to debate you when you want me to jump through hoops you are not willing to even do.

As for my post being long, it is because I was throughly responding to a post of yours that was long in the first place. So if that is your position, it is a waste to try to have any discussion with you, because these subjects are not black and white. They aren't simple.

 

[sojourner]

We are not mistaken about our expectations of the Messiah, because we do not expect an individual Messiah, except for some unlearned ones with still the slavish mentality of the exgyptian exile when they thought Moses had been the one. But Judaism is a progressive religion and the more we study about the issue, the more we learn that the Messiah is collective and not individual. Read the following:

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

Never heard such an approach -- not sure any of the Jews I've known would agree with you -- I'd have to ask them. On the surface it seems very humanistic -- more so than Isaiah would have promoted -- but OTOH, it does place the avatar of Messiah firmly within the realm of what many Xian theologians believe about Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm done then. All you do is dismiss, and dodge. And it is a problem I'm using a better translation? That is just ridiculous.

It obviously is no longer productive to try to debate you when you want me to jump through hoops you are not willing to even do.

As for my post being long, it is because I was throughly responding to a post of yours that was long in the first place. So if that is your position, it is a waste to try to have any discussion with you, because these subjects are not black and white. They aren't simple.

You are using a Christian translation and I am using a Jewish translation. If the text under discussion is Jewish, obviously l am the one with the more trustful translation. Logic sometimes helps.
Ben

 

[sojourner]

The irony is that Jesus ended up by being crucified on political charges. Is it enough to show you how much you are mistaken that our expectation of the Messiah was the one of a political Messiah? If Jesus' disciples had that expectation it is because they were unleaned Jews. Read Acts 4:13.
Ben

Most scholars agree that Xy was birthed from rural, Galilean belief.

 

[sojourner]

If the text under discussion is Jewish, obviously l am the one with the more trustful translation.

That's up for debate.

 

[Ben Masada]

Most scholars agree that Xy was birthed from rural, Galilean belief.

It means that most scholars are funs of dead horses.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

That's up for debate.

No, it is not. Logic cannot be debated.
Ben

 

[fallingblood]

You are using a Christian translation and I am using a Jewish translation. If the text under discussion is Jewish, obviously l am the one with the more trustful translation. Logic sometimes helps.
Ben

The KJV is a Jewish translation? Are we not talking about the NT, which is not a Jewish text?

I'm using the NRSV, which is one of the best translations of the NT. For the OT, I use the Jewish Study Bible, which was recommended to me by a couple of Rabbis.

I do agree though, logic sometimes helps. And you simply are not using it. I'm not a Christian. I have told you this before. And I'm not using a Christian translation when it comes to the OT. I use a Jewish Translation. And it is not logical to assume that since you are Jewish, you automatically have the better translation, especially when we are talking about the NT.

 

[fallingblood]

No, it is not. Logic cannot be debated.
Ben

It is only logical in your eyes. And yes, logic can be debated.

 

[Ben Masada]

Never heard such an approach -- not sure any of the Jews I've known would agree with you -- I'd have to ask them. On the surface it seems very humanistic -- more so than Isaiah would have promoted -- but OTOH, it does place the avatar of Messiah firmly within the realm of what many Xian theologians believe about Jesus.

Have you ever heard about Rashi, famous Jewish scholar? He believed in the collective Messiah in Israel from Isaiah 53. And so did Maimonides. Only the unlearned Jews still with the slavish mentality from Egypt, still hold on the individual Messiah a la Christian method.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

It is only logical in your eyes. And yes, logic can be debated.

Logic itself cannot be debated. Only what you think is logical.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

The KJV is a Jewish translation? Are we not talking about the NT, which is not a Jewish text?

I'm using the NRSV, which is one of the best translations of the NT. For the OT, I use the Jewish Study Bible, which was recommended to me by a couple of Rabbis.

I do agree though, logic sometimes helps. And you simply are not using it. I'm not a Christian. I have told you this before. And I'm not using a Christian translation when it comes to the OT. I use a Jewish Translation. And it is not logical to assume that since you are Jewish, you automatically have the better translation, especially when we are talking about the NT.

The NAB, a Catholic translation, St. Joseph's edition, is a much better translation than the Christian KJV translation.
Ben

 

[sojourner]

It means that most scholars are funs of dead horses.
Ben

Once again, in English -- not Esperanto, por favor...

 

[sojourner]

No, it is not. Logic cannot be debated.
Ben

We're not debating logic -- we're debating the validity of your statement. A Hebrew translation is not inherently "better," "more reliable," or "more trustworthy" than any other translation, given the variables involved.