They didn't recognize resurrected Jesus

[Swammerdami]

It seems to suggest that an actual charismatic person, Yeshua Ben Joseph, existed and was the foundation for the embellishments and mythology in the gospels?

Rather than 'Son of Joseph', isn't he often referred to as 'Son of Mary'? Curiously so?

Outside the Nativity myths, Jesus' father is mentioned almost nowhere in the Gospels. Consider this excerpt; Jesus' brother Joseph is mentioned but not his father:

And going out from thence, he went into his own country; and his disciples followed him. And when the Sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were in admiration at his doctrine, saying: How came this man by all these things? and what wisdom is this that is given to him, and such mighty works as are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and in his own house, and among his own kindred. And he could not do any miracles there, only that he cured a few that were sick, laying his hands upon them.

I believe there is a passage that describes JC as bronze skinned and black haired.

Neither King James' version nor the Douay–Rheims Bible contains the word 'bronze'! They use 'brass' where 'bronze' is presumably intended. (Why?)

Ignoring the prophecy in Daniel which predates Jesus' life, it is John of Patmos who mentions Jesus' appearance:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

 

[Politesse]

Rather than 'Son of Joseph', isn't he often referred to as 'Son of Mary'? Curiously so?

Outside the Nativity myths, Jesus' father is mentioned almost nowhere in the Gospels. Consider this excerpt; Jesus' brother Joseph is mentioned but not his father:

I believe there is a passage that describes JC as bronze skinned and black haired.

Neither King James' version nor the Douay–Rheims Bible contains the word 'bronze'! They use 'brass' where 'bronze' is presumably intended. (Why?)

Ignoring the prophecy in Daniel which predates Jesus' life, it is John of Patmos who mentions Jesus' appearance:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

I would have thought the eyes of flame would have given away the allegorical tone of the passage, but...

 

[funinspace]

Paul died before any of them were published save possibly Mark, if the traditional date of his execution is correct, and in Rome, far from where they are thought to have begun circulating.

I thought that though Mark's location of writing is a wide range of locations (Antioch, Rome, southern Syria...), and that Rome is one of the several possible locations it came from. So, if it was written there it seems that Paul could have been familiar with the oral/crib sheets of his time. As with so much, lots of guesses...

As with many things in early Christianity it is possible, just not very likely.

Indeed, the traditional Roman Catholic story is that Mark was written by a scribe, the eponymous Mark, on the basis of an interview with Peter, with whom Paul is said to have spent the last part of his ministry with and been executed synchronously with at Rome. If both of those stories are to be believed, then it would not be unfathomable to suppose that Paul might have been in the room while Mark was being set down.

It's usually doctrinaires who make the case for a Roman, Peter-sourced Mark, though. Not so much scholars. I'm an Antiochene hypothesis fan myself, at least by lean, but I think it very clear that it was at least written somewhere in the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean, where Christianity saw its first wave of publications.

Ah, that does make sense. Besides, I have for a long time thought it odd how Paul remained so silent on all the amazing things Jesus was purported to have done within the Gospels, beyond the resurrection thingy. That never made much sense to me once I started questioning the whole package deal.

 

[WAB]

John was high as a kite when he scribbled Revelations. And listening to Yes, apparently. How did John get to hear Yes on Patmos, at that time? Easy, he found a cassette recording of Tormato, all beaten and bruised, in a Juniper bush one time when he was a kid. Years later, after experimenting with mind-altering flowers and weeds for a couple of decades, he saw a guy in a sweat lodge who gave him a cassette player, and showed John how to use it. This guy also gave John his only cassette versions of the Dead's Terrapin Station and an Iron Maiden album. John kept hearing the number seven for some reason when he was blotto. He hallucinated in the desert one night, tripping like crazy, and saw all sorts of visions. Then he wrote the Revelations (and a few days after that he wrote the lyrics to The Revealing Science of God, which some helium-sucking hippie in a time machine later stole from him...it's all in the book, man).

 

[ideologyhunter]

When Paul was alive, Chick Comics had just started on papyrus, and he probably only lived see the first 3: Who's Gonna Burn in Hell? (ca. 59 CE), Have Fun Frying in Hell (ca. 61 CE), and What's It Like to Sizzle for Eternity? (ca. 65 CE).

 

[bilby]

Neither King James' version nor the Douay–Rheims Bible contains the word 'bronze'! They use 'brass' where 'bronze' is presumably intended. (Why?)

I don't think anyone prior to the industrial revolution would have known the difference, except a tiny handful of secretive expert metalworkers - and they likely would have disagreed amongst themselves about the precise definitions.

Shakespeare talks about 'brass cannon', but cannon of his time would have been either bronze or iron. Gunmetal typically has both zinc and tin added to the copper, and lead was also frequently included in the pre-industrial era. Even today metallurgists sometimes call it 'red brass', rather than 'bronze'. Prescriptive definitions of the words 'bronze' and 'brass' as commonly used today are very recent, and in the Early Modern period the two words were likely synonyms and used almost completely interchangeably.

Medieval intellectual property was typically defended by deliberate obscurity, so precise definitions likely existed but varied from guild to guild and place to place.

Neither William Shakespeare, nor any of King James's biblical scribes, would have likely been able to tell you the difference between bronze and brass, or even have known that any difference existed. Likely they called any yellowish alloy 'brass', unless it was 'gold' (even today, jewellers call any alloy which includes gold 'gold', regardless of how little actual gold it contains, hence oddities like 'white gold', which contains so little actual gold as to no longer be yellow in colour).

 

[Learner]

Oh, please. The disciples are less realistic than Jesus.

Trump iterally has followers already convinced he can pull off miracles. Praying to him.
Every one of the Christ's followers argued with him EVERY miracle.
No one can do that!
I can.
No way!
Way!
Nope!
...Jesus does his thing...
Whoa! You really ARE God!
Toldja.

Repeat next miracle.... real people wpild have begun accepting his claims, eventually.

Many Gospel details are embellishments to counter skeptics. Because the disciples doubted, a doubting reader can think "Those guys were not gullible. But they did eventually accept the Miracles."

I've had problems with this idea for quite a few years myself. The scribes or "embellishment" fellows, shall we say, who having the means to alter the narratives to counter the skeptics.... oddly enough seem to make their agenda somewhat more difficult by the 'apparently' argued contradiction issues, often brought up by atheits - not forgetting these men who were intelligent, somehow still thought to leave the 4 gospels that are noticeably different from each other, as they are.

My personal view is groups like like Sanhedrin offshoots and gnostics etc. had the agenda to discredit the conventional Jesus narrative...distortions and corruptions through centuries. I find interesting the parrallels of the gnostics idea that according to them.. Yahweh who created this earth who is not the ultimate God of the universe, is merely at the demigod category level. "Maybe they know something."

Its is quite interesting comparing the demigod parallels of the gnostics - because the actual creator of this earth being understood by more Christians now and hopefully rising, is realising the clarification that it was Jesus Himself not the Father. who was creator..(i.e. no one has seen the father but the Son etc..) It seems fitting imo because Jesus IS the judge and NOT the Holy Father on judgment day (some of us forget) .. obvious it would seem, being that it was Jesus's creation.

So IOW.. diminishing the importance of Jesus... even preached by some Christian sects (without knowing perhaps)... is the agenda. If Jesus says 'by Him alone, you can only get to the father' while some Christian/religious sects (I won't mention) will ignore the significance of Jesus - I'd ask those believers who preach, Jesus is but an "ordinary man & not the direct Son of God.." What would you expect Jesus to say on judgement day?

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:

 

[James Brown]

Ah, that does make sense. Besides, I have for a long time thought it odd how Paul remained so silent on all the amazing things Jesus was purported to have done within the Gospels, beyond the resurrection thingy. That never made much sense to me once I started questioning the whole package deal.

What struck me once was that Paul never mentions Jesus coming back. Yes, he says that Jesus is coming, will come, will be here soon, etc. But never "coming again" or "returning." At least, he never does in the English bibles I grew up reading.

That's exactly the sort of language that someone would use who A) believed that Jesus was a spiritual being in the heavens, and B) had never read a gospel.

 

[WAB]

Oh, please. The disciples are less realistic than Jesus.

Trump iterally has followers already convinced he can pull off miracles. Praying to him.
Every one of the Christ's followers argued with him EVERY miracle.
No one can do that!
I can.
No way!
Way!
Nope!
...Jesus does his thing...
Whoa! You really ARE God!
Toldja.

Repeat next miracle.... real people wpild have begun accepting his claims, eventually.

Many Gospel details are embellishments to counter skeptics. Because the disciples doubted, a doubting reader can think "Those guys were not gullible. But they did eventually accept the Miracles."

I've had problems with this idea for quite a few years myself. The scribes or "embellishment" fellows, shall we say, who having the means to alter the narratives to counter the skeptics.... oddly enough seem to make their agenda somewhat more difficult by the 'apparently' argued contradiction issues, often brought up by atheits - not forgetting these men who were intelligent, somehow still thought to leave the 4 gospels that are noticeably different from each other, as they are.

My personal view is groups like like Sanhedrin offshoots and gnostics etc. had the agenda to discredit the conventional Jesus narrative...distortions and corruptions through centuries. I find interesting the parrallels of the gnostics idea that according to them.. Yahweh who created this earth who is not the ultimate God of the universe, is merely at the demigod category level. "Maybe they know something."

Its is quite interesting comparing the demigod parallels of the gnostics - because the actual creator of this earth being understood by more Christians now and hopefully rising, is realising the clarification that it was Jesus Himself not the Father. who was creator..(i.e. no one has seen the father but the Son etc..) It seems fitting imo because Jesus IS the judge and NOT the Holy Father on judgment day (some of us forget) .. obvious it would seem, being that it was Jesus's creation.

So IOW.. diminishing the importance of Jesus... even preached by some Christian sects (without knowing perhaps)... is the agenda. If Jesus says 'by Him alone, you can only get to the father' while some Christian/religious sects (I won't mention) will ignore the significance of Jesus - I'd ask those believers who preach, Jesus is but an "ordinary man & not the direct Son of God.." What would you expect Jesus to say on judgement day?

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:

Learner, my friend, I admire your courage and endurance here in this nest of vipers. (SSSsssssssssssssssssssssss... )

I have asked this of you before (or perhaps it was Lion?), but I do not remember the answer. My bad. I am not saying you did not answer.

But to ask again, since this has come up yet again: If Jesus actually was God, as it seems you are saying in the part that I bolded above, then how do you reconcile the scene in Gethsemane where Jesus is obviously afraid, and prays to Abba, the Father, to please pass the cup to someone else, because He knows that others are plotting against Him, knows that crucifixion is immanent and unavoidable. He is without a doubt in a great deal of fear, and His anxiety is apparent in chiding the disciples for sleeping. Yes, Christ does ask that God the Father's "will" be done, not His own, and then He is comforted and gains resolve, etc.

If Jesus was God, or in some fashion God and Man and Spirit all together, in equal but distinct parts (if I understand the Trinity at all), then for what conceivable reason would He pray to Himself to save Himself from the mission He bestowed on Himself?

I did not conceive this question, of course, and it's been asked with virtually that same phrasing by lots of other people for a L O N G time, and I have read many explanations, from obscure clerics to the Church fathers, to Calvin, and all the way up to modern apologists, but I have not seen anything that makes logical sense; and it seems that we are compelled to try and understand it by renouncing the only means by which we could possibly understand it: our ability to reason.

 

[DBT]

Rather than 'Son of Joseph', isn't he often referred to as 'Son of Mary'? Curiously so?

Outside the Nativity myths, Jesus' father is mentioned almost nowhere in the Gospels. Consider this excerpt; Jesus' brother Joseph is mentioned but....

Perhaps due to the authors belief in a virgin birth?

 

[excreationist]

Consider the following verses:

Mark 6:14-16

King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

So King Herod, a relatively rational person at that time, was sure that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead in the form of Jesus....

So that means that someone could be "resurrected" as someone that looks totally different - which explains why people didn't recognize the apparently risen Jesus.....

see also

Matthew 16:14, Mark 8:27-28, Luke 9:7-9

And remember that people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, etc, even though Jesus wasn't claiming to be him.... but in the cases after Jesus' death those people were claiming to be Jesus.....

Maybe the reason why these sightings only lasted a short time is because most of the other people weren't convinced that it was Jesus due to them not looking much like Jesus.... (in a similar way to the majority of people didn't think Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist)

I think these "sightings" of Jesus could be based on actual events..... but people just thought it was Jesus - it wasn't literally Jesus.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Consider the following verses:

Mark 6:14-16

King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

So King Herod, a relatively rational person at that time, was sure that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead in the form of Jesus....

So that means that someone could be "resurrected" as someone that looks totally different - which explains why people didn't recognize the apparently risen Jesus.....

see also

Matthew 16:14, Mark 8:27-28, Luke 9:7-9

And remember that people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, etc, even though Jesus wasn't claiming to be him.... but in the cases after Jesus' death those people were claiming to be Jesus.....

Maybe the reason why these sightings only lasted a short time is because most of the other people weren't convinced that it was Jesus due to them not looking much like Jesus.... (in a similar way to the majority of people didn't think Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist)

I think these "sightings" of Jesus could be based on actual events..... but people just thought it was Jesus - it wasn't literally Jesus.

1) Herod is a fictional character. His thoughts and actions are inventions intended to emphasize the awesomeness of Jesus. There's no reason to believe he did or said anything that's in the Bible.

2) It's quite likely that John the Baptist and Jesus were routinely confused back then. Or confused with any of the many prophets floating about at the time. It's been acknowledged by many scholars that Jesus might be a composite character. Actions by John and Jesus could have been moved back and forward between them in different parts of the Bible. Or both are completely made up.

3) The Bible confuses Herod the Great (sr), Herod Antipas (jr) and Herod Agrippa (jr jr). They're treated as just one person.

4) The various Evangeliums contains clues of stuff that only could have happened after the fall of Masada and the destruction of the second temple (70 AD). That's when the Pharisees came to prominence.

The Bible has undergone a lot of editing to create a more streamlined simplified story. Sacrificing accuracy.

Bottom line, you can't draw the kinds of detailed conclusions about the reality that you are trying to do.

Or perhaps you are only talking about the fictional character of Herod in the Bible?

 

[excreationist]

......1) Herod is a fictional character. His thoughts and actions are inventions intended to emphasize the awesomeness of Jesus. There's no reason to believe he did or said anything that's in the Bible.

2) It's quite likely that John the Baptist and Jesus were routinely confused back then. Or confused with any of the many prophets floating about at the time. It's been acknowledged by many scholars that Jesus might be a composite character. Actions by John and Jesus could have been moved back and forward between them in different parts of the Bible. Or both are completely made up.

3) The Bible confuses Herod the Great (sr), Herod Antipas (jr) and Herod Agrippa (jr jr). They're treated as just one person.

4) The various Evangeliums contains clues of stuff that only could have happened after the fall of Masada and the destruction of the second temple (70 AD). That's when the Pharisees came to prominence.

The Bible has undergone a lot of editing to create a more streamlined simplified story. Sacrificing accuracy.

Bottom line, you can't draw the kinds of detailed conclusions about the reality that you are trying to do.

Or perhaps you are only talking about the fictional character of Herod in the Bible?

I think the story of King Herod is loosely based on a historical person who thought a dead person had been resurrected as someone else. Herod wasn't the only person that thought Jesus was resurrected from someone else like John the Baptist or Elijah.

Usually people just dismiss the King Herod story but I think it is an important story because this kind of concept explains why people thought Jesus had been resurrected even though they didn't orginally recognise "him".

 

[funinspace]

Ah, that does make sense. Besides, I have for a long time thought it odd how Paul remained so silent on all the amazing things Jesus was purported to have done within the Gospels, beyond the resurrection thingy. That never made much sense to me once I started questioning the whole package deal.

What struck me once was that Paul never mentions Jesus coming back. Yes, he says that Jesus is coming, will come, will be here soon, etc. But never "coming again" or "returning." At least, he never does in the English bibles I grew up reading.

That's exactly the sort of language that someone would use who A) believed that Jesus was a spiritual being in the heavens, and B) had never read a gospel.

Maybe I'm not reading you right, but 1 Corinthians 15:1-10 seems to address your comment. From the NASB:

3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to [c]Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to [d]James, then to all the apostles

There is also 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lorde forever.

 

[Politesse]

On resurrections of that sort, perhaps it is worth noting that the ancient Greeks and Romans themselves, at least those of certain faiths and schools, were believers in not just miraculous healing but also occasional meritocratic reincarnation. For instance, read Plato's Republic sometime; the treatise eds with the story of one Er, who twelve days after his death returned to the world of the living and told a story of a Hall of Judgement on the other side where the noble chose new lives for themselves as humans or animals. This was actually important to Platonic philosophy, which required the soul to be in some way indestructible.

 

[steve_bank]

Looking at it as fiction in a time when Jews were under the thumb of Rome how woud Roman view tghe gopsels?

A Jew walking on water and clanging water to wine, a story mocking Jews?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Looking at it as fiction in a time when Jews were under the thumb of Rome how woud Roman view tghe gopsels?

A Jew walking on water and clanging water to wine, a story mocking Jews?

We have evidence for that. Romans had a bit of a fetish for the Torah. Any old books got them excited. They loved Homer, Gilgamesh and Egyptian myth. It was common that gentile Romans would go to the Jewish temple.

Rome around 0 AD was an extremely open and cosmopolitan society. At this point Romans embraced religions and cults from all over the empire. Something not true just a generation or two earlier.

When Paul converted gentiles to Judaism (ie Christianity) he only did it inside Jewish temples around the empire. These gentiles, in particular, needed little convincing.

 

[Learner]

I've had problems with this idea for quite a few years myself. The scribes or "embellishment" fellows, shall we say, who having the means to alter the narratives to counter the skeptics.... oddly enough seem to make their agenda somewhat more difficult by the 'apparently' argued contradiction issues, often brought up by atheits - not forgetting these men who were intelligent, somehow still thought to leave the 4 gospels that are noticeably different from each other, as they are.

My personal view is groups like like Sanhedrin offshoots and gnostics etc. had the agenda to discredit the conventional Jesus narrative...distortions and corruptions through centuries. I find interesting the parrallels of the gnostics idea that according to them.. Yahweh who created this earth who is not the ultimate God of the universe, is merely at the demigod category level. "Maybe they know something."

Its is quite interesting comparing the demigod parallels of the gnostics - because the actual creator of this earth being understood by more Christians now and hopefully rising, is realising the clarification that it was Jesus Himself not the Father. who was creator..(i.e. no one has seen the father but the Son etc..) It seems fitting imo because Jesus IS the judge and NOT the Holy Father on judgment day (some of us forget) .. obvious it would seem, being that it was Jesus's creation.

So IOW.. diminishing the importance of Jesus... even preached by some Christian sects (without knowing perhaps)... is the agenda. If Jesus says 'by Him alone, you can only get to the father' while some Christian/religious sects (I won't mention) will ignore the significance of Jesus - I'd ask those believers who preach, Jesus is but an "ordinary man & not the direct Son of God.." What would you expect Jesus to say on judgement day?

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:

Learner, my friend, I admire your courage and endurance here in this nest of vipers. (SSSsssssssssssssssssssssss... )

I have asked this of you before (or perhaps it was Lion?), but I do not remember the answer. My bad. I am not saying you did not answer.

But to ask again, since this has come up yet again: If Jesus actually was God, as it seems you are saying in the part that I bolded above, then how do you reconcile the scene in Gethsemane where Jesus is obviously afraid, and prays to Abba, the Father, to please pass the cup to someone else, because He knows that others are plotting against Him, knows that crucifixion is immanent and unavoidable. He is without a doubt in a great deal of fear, and His anxiety is apparent in chiding the disciples for sleeping. Yes, Christ does ask that God the Father's "will" be done, not His own, and then He is comforted and gains resolve, etc.

Cheers WAB,

I can't be sure if you asked me that question (you possibly may have and I may not of seen it), but I have however come across this question asked by Christians themselves a few times online. I couldn't say what is actually meant here for sure in the scene, but I can only fathom from my limitation - that basically the idea is, Jesus knows the painful physical ordeal He'll go through which significantly must be taken or recieved as a physical humanbeing. His human self is stressed, significantly taking the ordeal as a man... as a human being as one of us, not as a God.

Philppians 2:5
5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6.Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7.But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8.And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


It is an interesting scene "passing the cup and the notion of fear" which is not to to be passed onto someone else to be precise - which also seems to be opposite to the idea of embellishment, for countering the sceptical audience. Having said that - OTOH this shows a humility and humble perspective.

If Jesus was God, or in some fashion God and Man and Spirit all together, in equal but distinct parts (if I understand the Trinity at all), then for what conceivable reason would He pray to Himself to save Himself from the mission He bestowed on Himself?

As you must remember, regarding the Trinity - the concept is, that there are three independent thinking entities, therefore Jesus in the narrative is not praying to Himself.

I did not conceive this question, of course, and it's been asked with virtually that same phrasing by lots of other people for a L O N G time, and I have read many explanations, from obscure clerics to the Church fathers, to Calvin, and all the way up to modern apologists, but I have not seen anything that makes logical sense; and it seems that we are compelled to try and understand it by renouncing the only means by which we could possibly understand it: our ability to reason.

Perhaps its Just a matter of time (from a simplistic viewpoint), unravelling bit by bit,verse by verse, and so on. But I would assume those people in your above, must at least understand the conceptual context, according to Daniels example, when Daniel didn't understand his own prophesies at the time, and was told that this was for those in the future who would unravel them.
Indeed... a long time to us, as mere mortals.

Daniel12:8
8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

 

[Swammerdami]

When Paul converted gentiles to Judaism (ie Christianity) he only did it inside Jewish temples around the empire. These gentiles, in particular, needed little convincing.

Where were these "Jewish temples," pray tell?

 

[DrZoidberg]

When Paul converted gentiles to Judaism (ie Christianity) he only did it inside Jewish temples around the empire. These gentiles, in particular, needed little convincing.

Where were these "Jewish temples," pray tell?

All over the Roman empire. This is literally explained in the Bible. Paul wasn't talking to Christians in the epistles. He was talking to Jews (pagan to Judaism converts and bonafide Jews who accepted them as such).

There was a whole bunch of terms for what these pagan converts were supposed to be called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

The Roman empire was extremely interconnected. Jews lived throughout the empire and had communities and temples in every major city and port.