This is where your error comes in:
Scripture is very unclear on this. Mark and John present us with diametrically opposite views as I argued above and reprint below.
Mark 14:32: 32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, “Abba,[a] Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial;[b] the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.
Of course Jesus was scared, nervous and had doubts. This account couldn’t make that anymore plainer. And if Jesus did possess knowledge of his divine purpose and plan, the only explicable reason here for his behavior is doubt and the fear that it brings. If Jesus knew with absolute certainty he would be in Heaven playing harps at the right hand of the Father right afterwards, why on earth is he so distraught Then follow this up with the psalm of lamentation and sense of abandonment on the cross:
34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Luke 22 which is dependent on Mark’s narrative:
and He knelt down and began to pray, 42 saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” 43 [[a]Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony, He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground].
Also notice how Luke, though he used Mark for most of his gospel and passion narrative, removes the line “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” from his own account. John also would not dare to record this which was probably blasphemous in his eyes.
Not for one second do I believe God had to turn away from Jesus because he somehow “became sin.” That is about as cogent as a round square is to me. How on earth is sin even defined in that sense? I always thought sin was not a thing or a being but a state of the will that is contrary to God’s own. This is a human man who felt a connection to God stronger than anyone else in history, in his darkest moment of despair on the cross. Despite his intense fear, doubt and anxiety (sweat like drops of blood) he went willingly to this fate.
Matthew 26, dependent on Mark, has the same general idea:
“My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
Jesus literally asked that the cup be taken from him. How on earth is any other exegesis remotely possible here? As noted, Matthew repeats the saying from Mark on the cross about God forsaking Jesus.
John has none of this in chapter 18 with Gethsemane. It is heresy to him. In fact, he flatly rejects this notion that Jesus could have said or done this. Instead in verse 11 he says shall I not drink the cup the Father has poured for me? Which is ultimately what he did in the other three accounts as well. But in John 12 Jesus wouldn’t dare ask that the cup be taken from him: “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour." John literally scoffs at Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.
I repeat these from above
[1] In Mark Jesus --greatly disturbed-- asks that the cup be taken away. In John (12:27) Jesus literally scoffs at the heretical notion of asking that the cup be taken from him.
[2] In Mark Jesus is seized or captured and the disciples run . In John Jesus lets the soldiers accompany him to his glorification and lets his disciples go free.
[3] In Mark it is Jesus who is prostrate on the ground praying before meeting his captors. In John it is the arresting party (a detachment of soldiers, their commander and Jewish leaders) who all fall to the ground when Jesus identifies himself.
[4] In Mark, Pilate interrogates Jesus. In John, one might get the impression Jesus is interrogating Pilate.
[5] In Mark, a painfully human Jesus is granted assistance carrying his cross. In John, the serenely transcendental and always-in-charge-Jesus requires no assistance at fulfilling the cup the father poured for him.
[6] In Mark Jesus is offered a drink while crying out on the cross My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? In John after Jesus realizes knowing all is finished and so that scripture could be fulfilled he says I am thirsty and someone brings him a drink.
[7] In Mark, Jesus lets out a loud cry and breaths his last breath. In John, knowing that all is fulfilled, Jesus chooses to give up his spirit. In John not only do the arresting party and Pilate have no power over Jesus, death itself does not have any power over Jesus.
You are simply elevating the portrayal of John over that of Mark. This is done mainly because some of us don’t want a Jesus who could have such doubts. We demand a Jesus who was always certain and decisive. We demand a superhuman Jesus. I apologize if I am heinously “imputing motives” as @Jay313 has said but this is normal when we are faced with competing scriptures. We all have to pick one side. But on historical grounds, which portrayal of Jesus is more likely to have been a post-easter theological development? The one where Jesus is omniscient and omnipotent and never falters for a second, or the one where Jesus appears human, with doubts, falling on the ground in despair? Which “version” of Jesus is the historical one is all too obvious.
Second, a temptation story where Jesus is decisive doesn’t mean he can’t later have doubts. A story of him impressing Jewish religious leaders at 12 and knowing the temple is his Fathers house (in a special sense for him) also does not in anyway exclude this. We also have no idea how condensed (a word apologists love when dealing with errors) that narrative in the desert/wilderness is. It says Jesus was there for 40 days. We have no idea how extensive any doubts or temptations he may have had actually were. We have a 2 minute conversation out of 40 days. But to be honest, I don’t see that story as being well evidence historically. The details as we have them seems to mirror Israel in the desert for 40 years. I agree with you that the wilderness story is about temptation over doubt though. But having a strong sense of self understanding doesn’t mean in the ebb and flow of life, especially when about to be seized and probably torturously killed, one cannot despair.
Doubts are not sin, doubts are not evil. They are a normal part of human life as is uncertainty about the future. Jesus doesn’t know the day or hour, or who touched his robe, this is not omniscience.
Now I can see a point for fundamentalists. If you believe in every single miracle of Jesus and every single thing the gospel authors narrated, after all he said and did (controlling the weather, walking on water, raising the dead, his parents telling him o his virgin birth, him having conversations with Satan in the desert, him feeding thousands with a few fish and miraculously healing probably hundreds or more people, if not thousands of them, it seems odd for such a man to have doubts in the garden. Still, death can do strange things to people but this is of course the problem of inerrancy. We get inconsistent portraits of Jesus and in the end, most people end up choosing one that ends up reflecting their own desires and beliefs. This is the build a Jesus where you sweep away or harmonize evidence contrary to your views. Maybe I am guilty if this too, Maybe I want the suffering servant, the Jesus who is all too human with doubts and anxiety. But I think historical exegesis is clearly on my side. The Jesus of John on this matter is far more likely to have been a post-Easter theological development than the one we see in Mark about 40 years after Jesus’ death.
Vinnie
