The Gospels....or Bullshit Makes The Flowers Grow

[Caligvla XXI]

"For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary."

You might want to toss this. Golgotha is based on the Hebrew/Aramaic word for skull, while Calvary is based on the Latin word for skull.

Actually there are more "explanations" what Golgotha means, from wiki article:

A number of alternative explanations have been given for the name. It has been suggested that the Aramaic name is actually Gol Goatha, meaning mount of execution, possibly the same location as the Goatha mentioned in a Book of Jeremiah passage, describing the geography of Jerusalem. An alternative explanation is that the location was a place of public execution, and the name refers to abandoned skulls that would be found there, or that the location was near a cemetery, and the name refers to the bones buried there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary

and so on... So why would I settle that it simply means the same word when it can also mean other words (like mount of execution) and not two different places?

The original point you made suggested there was a discrepancy in the gospel accounts. From the same Wikipedia article:

• Mark: And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
  
• Matthew: And when they came to a place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
  
• Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
  
• John: So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha
  

They all agree that the place name had to do with "skull," three of them associating the meaning with "golgotha," one leaving out the reference to "golgotha."

[Caligvla XXI]

"For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary."

You might want to toss this. Golgotha is based on the Hebrew/Aramaic word for skull, while Calvary is based on the Latin word for skull.

Actually there are more "explanations" what Golgotha means, from wiki article:

A number of alternative explanations have been given for the name. It has been suggested that the Aramaic name is actually Gol Goatha, meaning mount of execution, possibly the same location as the Goatha mentioned in a Book of Jeremiah passage, describing the geography of Jerusalem. An alternative explanation is that the location was a place of public execution, and the name refers to abandoned skulls that would be found there, or that the location was near a cemetery, and the name refers to the bones buried there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary

and so on... So why would I settle that it simply means the same word when it can also mean other words (like mount of execution) and not two different places?

But your original post suggested there was a discrepancy in the gospel accounts. From the same Wikipedia article:

Mark: And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
Matthew: And when they came to a place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
John: So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha.

They all agree that the place name has to do with “skull,” three associating that meaning with “golgotha,” one leaving out the reference to “golgotha.”

[Fake Messiah]

Well you have to read that article little bit further and you'll see that there explanations which I copy pasted like that Gol Goatha means mount of execution, but from what I see Christians don't hold much to that.

In any case what ever name is Gol Goatha or Golgotha or Calvary the place does not exist. There are many competing sites that claim it's location. For instance in 325 Constantine's mother, the Empress Helena "discovered" the True Site of Cavalry - right on top of a sacred shrine to Aphrodite. It’s also truly remarkable how often sacred sites do double duty for rival religions, like Vatican that was built a short distance from the headquarters for Roman god Janus who held the keys to the gates of heaven.

[Minimalist]

"Jesus" is a fictional character.  He could have died with Custer at Little Big Horn as easily as anywhere else.

[Caligvla XXI]

"Jesus" is a fictional character.  He could have died with Custer at Little Big Horn as easily as anywhere else.

But was Golgotha fictional?

---

Well you have to read that article little bit further and you'll see that there explanations which I copy pasted like that Gol Goatha means mount of execution, but from what I see Christians don't hold much to that.

Sure, if you take the Aramaic gagulta "skull" and jack-shit it around and add an extra syllable you'll get gol goatha.

---

For instance in 325 Constantine's mother, the Empress Helena "discovered" the True Site of Cavalry

Did she stumble across a bunch of horse skeletons or something?

[Minimalist]

Doesn't really matter.  At the time that later xtians chose to set their story the situation in Judaea was relatively peaceful.  In 6 AD, Augustus had granted a petition by the nobility to remove Archelaus as Tetrarch and let the province become a Roman prefecture attached to Syria.   According to the Luke variant of the tale as it exists now jesus wasn't even born until sometime after Quirinius and Coponius were sent to Syria and Judaea respectively.  Of course, the Matty variant has "jesus" being 10-12 years old by this time and living in "Nazareth" which was located in Herod Antipas' realm of Galilee and Perea.  The Sanhedrin had limited local authority in Jerusalem and the Prefect himself went to set up his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima which was built by Herod the Great and was far more accommodating to Greco-Roman lifestyles.  Plus the climate was better.  This rather happy state of affairs continued until Caligula came along and by the time the jesus story was supposedly over.  Pilate, according to Josephus and Philo, may have antagonized the people some but neither of them mentions him killing any so-called "jesus."

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves and rebels among the Romans and the Jews seemed to prefer stoning.  The gosples claim that jesus was neither a slave nor a rebel so the whole story just does not ring true.  But then, there are so many parts of the story that do not ring true that fixating on that one seems tame. 

Frankly, the whole thing seems to be an invention of whoever wrote "mark" and the others copied it - and, as someone noted - "Luke" who was writing for a primarily Roman audience translated the term into Latin.  So what?

[vorlon13]

"Jesus" is a fictional character.  He could have died with Custer at Little Big Horn as easily as anywhere else.

Tough call there.

Fictional Jesus, or crucified twice on consecutive days like Scripture says ???


Tough call.  Tough call, indeed.

[Minimalist]

The Sioux did not use crucifixion.

[Fake Messiah]

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves and rebels among the Romans and the Jews seemed to prefer stoning.

Yes, that's true but then Jesus wasn't accused of anything. Wasn't he? Pilate apparently said. "Take him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him." So the highest court of a country pronounced a man innocent and then condemned him to death because, you know, bloodthirsty Jews were celebrating their bloody Passover. That's just part of the antisemitism from the NT.

Not to mention another elephant in the room and that is that Gospels obviously disagree with each other on what led to Jesus' death. Mark claims the Pharisees began plotting to kill Jesus at the beginning of his career, after he heals a man's withered hand in the synagogue. Then 11 chapters later Jesus is arrested and when that happens, the Pharisees don't have anything to do with it.
Luke says it's because he cast out the money-changers from the Temple in the final week of his life although John says Jesus' Temple-cleansing incident has nothing to do with his death because that happened at the beginning of Jesus' career. Instead, John's Jesus brings the wrath of the Jews on his head by raising Lazarus from the dead, even though Lazarus doesn't even appear in the other gospels.

[Minimalist]

Yes, that's true but then Jesus wasn't accused of anything.

It's fiction.  They could have accused him of staging a threesome with the High Priest's daughter and Mary Magdalene.  What would it matter?