History Repeats Itself

[Spirithound]

So Ben, what do you think about Jesus putting himself in between the Roman guards and his disciples?

 

[Ben_Masada]

So Ben, what do you think about Jesus putting himself in between the Roman guards and his disciples?

**He was aware of the Roman policy to deal with subversive private groups in the Provinces: To crucify the leader so that the disciples would disperse.
They had not come for the group but only for the learder. That’s exactly what happened. They took Jesus and all the others deserted and fled. (Mark 14:50)

Mind you, Jesus’ group was not the only one. It was a custom at that time in Israel for Teachers of the Law to gather followers in the mystic number of 12 to teach Torah with the purpose to prepare future teachers. Many others went through the same destiny.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Matthew 16:15-17 – “And you, who do you say that I am?” “You are the Messiah”,
Simon Peter answered, “the Son of the Living God!” Jesus replied, “…no mere man
has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father”.

Peter was an apostle. And why would you admire Jesus for telling such a lie?

It will be impossible to have a true discussion until I have a new bible, which contains
only the parts that you believe…

Blessings on you sir…

**Jesus could never have said that. It would have been a contradiction to the Scriptures. Not Jewish, therefore, not true. Jesus knew from the Scriptures that, “So, says the Lord, Israel is My son; let My son go so that he may serve Me.” (Exo. 4:22,23)

Besides, if Peter believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he could have preached about it in Jerusalem, where the Sect had its headquarters. About 30 years later, when Paul showed up with the same message, he was nearly killed by the local Jews. How could the Apostles coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism? That’s an obvious evidence that the Apostles of Jesus did not know that he was the Messiah.**

 

[cheeto1]

the Apostles of Jesus did not know that he was the Messiah.

Acts 2:34-36 couldn’t be more clear. They preached Jesus as Messiah, before
Stephen was ever martyred. They did have troubles. They kept going on trial
before the Sanhedrin…

 

[Ignatius]

The text is in Matthew 26:36-39.

Soon after the Last Supper, as he sensed arrest, he took his disciples and fled to a hiding place in the Gethsemani. At the entrance of the Garden, he left eight of the disciples and told them to watch, and took farther inside the other three disciples: Peter, James and John. Perhaps he thought, if there was a fight, at least the second group would have a chance to escape. In another place farther in, he told the three disciples to stay put and watch, while he would go deeper inside to spend some time
in prayer.

Now, I have been wondering how much of these two cases have in common. One thing we can all be certain of: Both men, Jacob and Jesus were going through the same kind of anxieties in fear for their lives. Bear in mind that the parallel between the facts within the cases is astounding. Would it be appropriate to think of the eight disciples at the entrance of the Garden as the facsimile to the maidservants of Jacob with their children? How about the three disciples in the second group meant to represent Leah with her children? And scary of all, Jesus himself for Jacob with Rachel and Joseph? Luke does say that Jesus was indeed so anxious as to sweat even drops of blood.

You’re not being I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest, Ben. It is clear that Jesus went a few feet away to pray and then returned before the adversaries approached. Why don’t you try to gain an honest understanding of it?
Mat 26:39 And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:40 And he cometh to his disciples and findeth them asleep. And he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me?
Mat 26:41 Watch ye: and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 26:42 Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done.
Mat 26:43 And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy.
Mat 26:44 And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word.
Mat 26:45 Then he cometh to his disciples and said to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest. Behold the hour is at hand: and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Mat 26:46 Rise: let us go. Behold he is at hand that will betray me.

 

[Spirithound]

**He was aware of the Roman policy to deal with subversive private groups in the Provinces: To crucify the leader so that the disciples would disperse.
They had not come for the group but only for the learder. That’s exactly what happened. They took Jesus and all the others deserted and fled. (Mark 14:50) **

So then you’re saying that Jesus willingly offered his life?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Acts 2:34-36 couldn’t be more clear. They preached Jesus as Messiah, before
Stephen was ever martyred. They did have troubles. They kept going on trial
before the Sanhedrin…

That speech was never delivered by Peter or anyone else. It was written but never delivered. Fist, Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite. Then, the introduction in Acts 2:14 could never be of a Jewish man. “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem…” Then, a Gentile would not deliver such an antisemitic speech, accusing the Jews with the death of Jesus, and still expect to come out alive. Luke wrote it but just to document the Church with apostolic stock.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You’re not being I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest, Ben. It is clear that Jesus went a few feet away to pray and then returned before the adversaries approached. Why don’t you try to gain an honest understanding of it?

And what was Jesus’ reaction? He got upset because the disciples had not been able to watch, for they were sleeping. Why watch if he was aware of the expectations? Something is wrong here.

Mat 26:39. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me.

As you can see, the poor man was desperate about having to die on the cross.

Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt.

And what was Jesus’ will, to die on the cross? It’s unbelievable that’s possible to see willingness in Jesus to die on the cross after such a reply of his. Only with Church blinders.

And he cometh to his disciples and findeth them asleep. And he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me? Mat 26:41 Watch ye: and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Why watch? If Jesus wanted them not to sleep why didn’t he take them all to pray in group? There is something wrong about this watching.

Mat 26:42Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done.

That’s the second time he tries to persuade God to change His mind about the Pauline plan of salvation. And again, “Thy will be done; not mine.” It means Jesus went to the cross against his will.

Mat 26:43And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy.
Mat 26:44

And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word.

Yes, for three times he tried to tell God that the idea was only His, and not Jesus’ will. Don’t you think it’s high time to stop the cliche that he willingly put down his life? As you can see, it was not true.

Mat 26:45Then he cometh to his disciples and said to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest. Behold the hour is at hand: and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Mat 26:46 Rise: let us go. Behold he is at hand that will betray me.

I wonder why none of the disciples didn’t tell him: "Nu, make up your mind! Why do you say, sleep now and take your rest, and at the same time tell us to rise and go? How can we sleep and go at the same time?"

 

[Ben_Masada]

So then you’re saying that Jesus willingly offered his life?

If I had said so, I would be setting Jesus in contradiction with himself. Didn’t he make it very clear that it was not his will to die on the cross? He just could not do anything. He had been caught and like many other leaders of Twelve, he had to go to the cross, against his will or not.

 

[Spirithound]

If I had said so, I would be setting Jesus in contradiction with himself. Didn’t he make it very clear that it was not his will to die on the cross? He just could not do anything. He had been caught and like many other leaders of Twelve, he had to go to the cross, against his will or not.

Then what do you mean by affirming that Jesus put himself between the Roman guard and his disciples?

 

[Cachonga]

Ben Masada - how can anyone give you an acceptable answer? When we quote from the New Testament, you argue against it with things like “A learned Jewish man wouldn’t say such things.” You seem to feel that Paul “created” Christianity from Hellenistic Judaism, but this was not what Jesus or the Apostles believed, yet there is no contradictions in the writings of the New Testament (and not all of these were written by Paul). You say that Jesus and the Apostles were known as the “cult of the Nazarenes”, but it was in Antioch, where Paul taught that the term “Christian” was first used. This is a straw man argument. The term “Cult of the Nazarene” was put on them by those outside the group (and was used by those within it since they had nothing better to call themselves). However, the believers in Antioch, for whatever reason, changed it to “Christians”, which replaced the other term (and with no condemnation from the original Apostles, who met with Paul in Jerusalem and heard what he was preaching to the Gentiles). And let’s not forget, Peter traveled to Antioch, and we have no record of him being displeased with their use of the term “Christian”. It is not an uncommon thing for a group to change it’s name to better define itself. I used to work for Southwestern Bell, which later became SBC, and is now the new AT&T. Each name change came about as the company grew and expanded it’s territory. The early Church expanded outside of Jerusalem and Judea, and began to include Gentiles. Why is it a problem that what they called themselves changed?

Maybe I’m making too much of this. I am still waiting to hear how you compare Psalms 22 with the crucifixion. In regard to the willingness of Jesus to accept this crucifixion, it seems that something has been missed in the previous arguments. Jesus knew He was to die, and how. That is clear. That He was willing to do the will of the Father is also clear. What is being missed is why did He have to die? What was to be accomplished by His death? This is why Jesus was willing to go through this, though He may have wanted an alternative, but ONLY if the results would be the same. It was the end result He had in mind, and He was fully determined to see that come about, even if it meant a horrible, humiliating death on a cross.

I will end here and look forward to your reply.

 

[ryanoneil]

And what was Jesus’ will, to die on the cross? It’s unbelievable that’s possible to see willingness in Jesus to die on the cross after such a reply of his. Only with Church blinders.

That’s the second time he tries to persuade God to change His mind about the Pauline plan of salvation. And again, “Thy will be done; not mine.” It means Jesus went to the cross against his will.

Yes, for three times he tried to tell God that the idea was only His, and not Jesus’ will. Don’t you think it’s high time to stop the cliche that he willingly put down his life? As you can see, it was not true.

Respectfully, you constantly say we Christians don’t understand the OT. Well you don’t understand this NT scripture. To illustrate my point, I’m going to purposefully misinterprete the OT to show what you are doing to the NT.

Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” he replied. Then God said: “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you.” Early the next morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took with him his son Isaac, and two of his servants as well, and with the wood that he had cut for the holocaust, set out for the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham got sight of the place from afar. Then he said to his servants: “Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. We will worship and then come back to you.” (Gen 22:1-5)

**Was it Abraham’s will to sacrifice Isaac? NO! The evidence he had no intention to do it is his replying “We will worship and then come back to you.” Only with Judaism’s blinders.

When Abraham said “God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust” he clearly went to Moriah without the intention of sacrificing Isaac.

Don’t you think it is high time you stop the cliche that he was willing to sacrifice Issac? As you can see it is not true. What does that say about the covenant with Abraham?**

Now obviously I’m being extreme and don’t believe this, but I hope you see my point! You are misrepresenting as bad as I just did.

 

[cheeto1]

That speech was never delivered by Peter or anyone else. It was written but never delivered. Fist, Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite. Then, the introduction in Acts 2:14 could never be of a Jewish man. “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem…” Then, a Gentile would not deliver such an antisemitic speech, accusing the Jews with the death of Jesus, and still expect to come out alive. Luke wrote it but just to document the Church with apostolic stock.

I wonder why the Jews would be angry enough to kill over being accused of the
death of Jesus. Didn’t they want Him dead? Shouldn’t they just proudly say, “that’s
right, He’s dead, the imposter!” The ones who didn’t want Him dead repented and
became believers. If that speech was never delivered by Peter, then how do you
know Jesus was even born?

 

[Spirithound]

Ben Masada - how can anyone give you an acceptable answer? When we quote from the New Testament, you argue against it with things like “A learned Jewish man wouldn’t say such things.” You seem to feel that Paul “created” Christianity from Hellenistic Judaism…

This is what most of Ben Masada’s threads become…

 

[Ben_Masada]

Then what do you mean by affirming that Jesus put himself between the Roman guard and his disciples?

**Jesus was aware of the Roman policy in all the provinces to arrest only the head of any private group with subversive suspictions, so that the disciples would disperse, which was exactly what happened to Jesus’ disciples. (Mark 14:50) He knew that the soldiers had come only for him. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada - how can anyone give you an acceptable answer? When we quote from the New Testament, you argue against it with things like “A learned Jewish man wouldn’t say such things.”

**We are talking about a religious Jewish man called Jesus. So, anything not-Jewish about him is not true. It constitutes an interpolation. **

You seem to feel that Paul “created” Christianity from Hellenistic Judaism, but this was not what Jesus or the Apostles believed, yet there is no contradictions in the writings of the New Testament (and not all of these were written by Paul).

There has never been such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism. If you read the definition given for Christianity in the Bible Dictionary at the end of the New American Version of the Bible, it says in there that Christianity was a Hellenistic religion. The NT is loaded with contradictions. I know that not all of it was written by Paul. But the other writers had been his disciples, either in person or by absencia.

You say that Jesus and the Apostles were known as the “cult of the Nazarenes”, but it was in Antioch, where Paul taught that the term “Christian” was first used.

I never said that Jesus and the Apostles were known as the “cult of the Nazarenes.” I said Sect of the Nazarenes. There is an enormous difference between cult and Sect. The Nazarenes were but one of several Jewish sects of the First Century.

This is a straw man argument. The term “Cult of the Nazarene” was put on them by those outside the group (and was used by those within it since they had nothing better to call themselves).

There was another name they would call themselves: The Way; or the New Way. Read in Acts 9. When Paul went for letters from the High Priest in Jerusalem, it was to arrest the followers of The Way in the synagogues of Damascus.

However, the believers in Antioch, for whatever reason, changed it to “Christians”, which replaced the other term (and with no condemnation from the original Apostles, who met with Paul in Jerusalem and heard what he was preaching to the Gentiles).

Yes, there was a change. From Nazarenes to Christians. That’s why Luke says in Acts 11:26, that then and there was the first time the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year preaching that Jesus was Christ. Doesn’t it ring a bell in your ears? What was the reason for the change? Because as Nazarenes they did not know that Jesus was Christ. Please, don’t let the Church blinders make you discard such a Logic.

And let’s not forget, Peter traveled to Antioch, and we have no record of him being displeased with their use of the term “Christian”.

After the Nazarene Council met in Acts 15 to solve the problem between Paul and the Nazarenes, the Council had come to the conclusion that there was no point fighting Paul, who had become too powerful and the sole founder of a new religion called Christianity. That’s why Peter had to accept the status quo.

It is not an uncommon thing for a group to change it’s name to better define itself.

Right! And Christian was a much better name to define the Church of Paul than the disciples’ previous name of Nazarenes.

The early Church expanded outside of Jerusalem and Judea, and began to include Gentiles. Why is it a problem that what they called themselves changed?

There was never a Christian church in Jerusalem or in the whole of Israel for that matter. When Paul appeared in Jerusalem with his gospel that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was banned from Israel and anything from or about him became forbidden by the Jewish authorities, especially the Pharisees. That’s why he always had a grudge against the Pharisees.

Maybe I’m making too much of this. I am still waiting to hear how you compare Psalms 22 with the crucifixion.

I don’t. Psalm 22 has nothing to do with the crucifixion. It has all to do with Israel, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

In regard to the willingness of Jesus to accept this crucifixion, it seems that something has been missed in the previous arguments. Jesus knew He was to die, and how. That is clear. That He was willing to do the will of the Father is also clear.

There was no willingness in Jesus to accept the crucifixion. If there had been, he would not have prayed three times not to be crucified. Yes, he did do God’s will, but the point is that God’s will was not his will.

What is being missed is why did He have to die? What was to be accomplished by His death? This is why Jesus was willing to go through this, though He may have wanted an alternative, but ONLY if the results would be the same. It was the end result He had in mind, and He was fully determined to see that come about, even if it meant a horrible, humiliating death on a cross.

**Jesus knew the Scriptures, that’s against the Law for a Jewish man to die for another. The only thing accomplished by his death concerned only the Romans, who thought they had got rid of one more potential trouble maker. There was never in Jesus any determination to walk the via dolorosa. You are digging more and more contradictions in the NT. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Respectfully, you constantly say we Christians don’t understand the OT. Well you don’t understand this NT scripture. To illustrate my point, I’m going to purposefully misinterprete the OT to show what you are doing to the NT.

Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” he replied. Then God said: “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you.” Early the next morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took with him his son Isaac, and two of his servants as well, and with the wood that he had cut for the holocaust, set out for the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham got sight of the place from afar. Then he said to his servants: “Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. We will worship and then come back to you.” (Gen 22:1-5)

**Was it Abraham’s will to sacrifice Isaac? NO! The evidence he had no intention to do it is his replying “We will worship and then come back to you.” Only with Judaism’s blinders.

When Abraham said “God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust” he clearly went to Moriah without the intention of sacrificing Isaac.

Don’t you think it is high time you stop the cliche that he was willing to sacrifice Issac? As you can see it is not true. What does that say about the covenant with Abraham?**

Now obviously I’m being extreme and don’t believe this, but I hope you see my point! You are misrepresenting as bad as I just did.

**Either way, you are deeply mistaken about what really happened with the “binding” of Isaac. That’s how the metaphorical so-called sacrifice of Isaac is addressed in Jewish quarters. The binding of Isaac. There was never to be a sacrifice because Jews don’t sacrifice their children as pagans do. Besides, everything happened in a vision.

As we all know, Abraham was living among Canaanite pagans who would sacrifice their firstborn so that they could be blessed with more aboundant progeny. Abraham was wondering about such a custom and impressed with their love for their gods which would be stronger than their love for their children. Then, perhaps he slumbered and had a vision when God would show him that with Israel it would be different. The firstborn would be redeemed and be a blessing to others not by his death but by his life. So, we Jews never speak of that event as a sacrifice but as a binding. Isaac on behalf of his seed, the Jewish People, would bind Mankind with God. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I wonder why the Jews would be angry enough to kill over being accused of the
death of Jesus. Didn’t they want Him dead? Shouldn’t they just proudly say, “that’s
right, He’s dead, the imposter!” The ones who didn’t want Him dead repented and
became believers. If that speech was never delivered by Peter, then how do you
know Jesus was even born?

**That’s the point of this issue. The Jews didn’t want Jesus dead. That’s a false accusation of the gospels. How could the Jews of Jesus’ time consider impostor a fellow Jew who had come to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God’s Law? Now, I know that Jesus was born because of the 20 percent I believe of the NT. Paul had to pick on someone among the thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans. Since his best old friend Barnabas was one of the followers of the New Way,
he found that no one could be better than Jesus, the founder of the Sect of the Nazarenes, whom Barnabas followed. Besides, Jesus had been gone for 30 years. He was just perfect for the plans of Paul.
**

 

[Cachonga]

Ben Masada:

We are talking about a religious Jewish man called Jesus. So, anything not-Jewish about him is not true. It constitutes an interpolation.

So then you’re accusing the writers of the New Testament of lying? Other than your claim that “a learned Jew wouldn’t say that”, what evidence do you offer to prove this? I would also ask how you know what Judaism was like 2000 years ago in Palestine (are you assuming they taught then what is taught today?). Would you consider yourself a Pharasee or a Saducee?
Ben Masada:

There has never been such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism. If you read the definition given for Christianity in the Bible Dictionary at the end of the New American Version of the Bible, it says in there that Christianity was a Hellenistic religion. The NT is loaded with contradictions. I know that not all of it was written by Paul. But the other writers had been his disciples, either in person or by absencia.

I stand corrected on the Hellenistic Judaism comment. But I am amazed that you would assert that the New Testament was written by Paul and his “disciples, either in person or by absencia”. Peter, James and John all wrote parts of the New Testament, and they spent over 3 years under the direct teaching of Jesus. How did they become disciples of Paul? I would REALLY like to see your evidence for this claim!
Ben Masada:

I never said that Jesus and the Apostles were known as the “cult of the Nazarenes.” I said Sect of the Nazarenes. There is an enormous difference between cult and Sect. The Nazarenes were but one of several Jewish sects of the First Century.

Again, I stand corrected.
Ben Masada:

There was another name they would call themselves: The Way; or the New Way. Read in Acts 9. When Paul went for letters from the High Priest in Jerusalem, it was to arrest the followers of The Way in the synagogues of Damascus.

OK, so they were known by other names.
Ben Masada:

Yes, there was a change. From Nazarenes to Christians. That’s why Luke says in Acts 11:26, that then and there was the first time the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year preaching that Jesus was Christ. Doesn’t it ring a bell in your ears? What was the reason for the change? Because as Nazarenes they did not know that Jesus was Christ. Please, don’t let the Church blinders make you discard such a Logic.

Jesus and most of His disciples were from Nazareth, hence the term “Nazarenes”. Paul, on the other hand, was not from Nazareth, and Antioch was a Greek city (hence “Christ” instead of “Messiah”). The gospel message was the same (Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the Church leaders to explain what he had been preaching, and was NOT corrected in his doctrine).
Ben Masada:

After the Nazarene Council met in Acts 15 to solve the problem between Paul and the Nazarenes, the Council had come to the conclusion that there was no point fighting Paul, who had become too powerful and the sole founder of a new religion called Christianity. That’s why Peter had to accept the status quo.

I would like to know what version of scriptures you got this out of. Oh, wait. I almost forgot - you think the entire New Testament was written by Paul and his disciples, and there is no truth in them. Talk about “Church blinders make you discard such a Logic.”
Ben Masada:

Right! And Christian was a much better name to define the Church of Paul than the disciples’ previous name of Nazarenes.

And your proof for this claim is… ?
Ben Masada:

There was never a Christian church in Jerusalem or in the whole of Israel for that matter. When Paul appeared in Jerusalem with his gospel that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was banned from Israel and anything from or about him became forbidden by the Jewish authorities, especially the Pharisees. That’s why he always had a grudge against the Pharisees.

So how is it that he was taken in the Temple while fulfilling a vow? And why was there a Christian Church in Jerusalem to welcome him when he came? Or is this a “contradiction” that your “logic” tells you can’t be true?
Ben Masada:

I don’t. Psalm 22 has nothing to do with the crucifixion. It has all to do with Israel, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

So when did your Suffering Servant have his hands and feet pierced (Ps 22:16)? When did your Suffering Servant have his garments parted and have lots cast for his vesture (Ps 22:18)? I can show you where this happened at the crucifixion (as well as other parallels).
Ben Masada:

There was no willingness in Jesus to accept the crucifixion. If there had been, he would not have prayed three times not to be crucified. Yes, he did do God’s will, but the point is that God’s will was not his will.

…

Jesus knew the Scriptures, that’s against the Law for a Jewish man to die for another. The only thing accomplished by his death concerned only the Romans, who thought they had got rid of one more potential trouble maker. There was never in Jesus any determination to walk the via dolorosa. You are digging more and more contradictions in the NT.

Scriptures also say that adulterers and murderers are to be stoned to death, yet King David was spared by God. Why do you suppose that was? During the Passover seder, a place is always set for Elijah. Why is that? Doesn’t he come before Messiah? If so, who is Messiah? Is it Israel the people, or Israel the man? You have more problems with your arguments than a three year old’s explanation for how he got cookie crumbs on his hands and mouth.

 

[Spirithound]

**Jesus was aware of the Roman policy in all the provinces to arrest only the head of any private group with subversive suspictions, so that the disciples would disperse, which was exactly what happened to Jesus’ disciples. (Mark 14:50) He knew that the soldiers had come only for him. **

When did you realize this?