Jesus in the garden

[Dave]

when jesus was in the garden before his capture, he prayed to god, asking him if there was any other way. if jesus in fact was god, wouldn't he know that that was the only way?

[Roland]

Maybe Jesus was as appalled at the idea of human sacrifice as we are.

[rickP]

The bigger question is how would anyone know what he said, since he was supposedly alone? It's not likely that he had time to relate the story to anyone, as he was arrested right after that.

:confused:

[lpetrich]

That certainly does imply that Jesus Christ was distinct from God; in most of the rest of the Gospels, JC speaks of God as if God was distinct from him. The Trinity was invented to explain such curiosities; those were presumably other Persons in that ensemble.

Also, the Gospel of Matthew uses various euphemisms for God - Kingdom of Heaven instead of Kingdom of God, etc. - which JC uses in that Gospel but not in the other ones.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Dave
when jesus was in the garden before his capture, he prayed to god, asking him if there was any other way. if jesus in fact was god, wouldn't he know that that was the only way? "John" didn't like the Gethsemane scene at all, so he simply dispensed with it, and had his Jesus be totally cool and in control throughout the crucifixion.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by rickP
The bigger question is how would anyone know what he said, since he was supposedly alone? It's not likely that he had time to relate the story to anyone, as he was arrested right after that.

:confused: Sorry, there's an apologetic for this one. Jesus filled the disciples in on the details after the resurrection. Believe it or don't! :)

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Gregg
Sorry, there's an apologetic for this one. Jesus filled the disciples in on the details after the resurrection. Believe it or don't! :)

Theres a better one than that.

Vinnie

[spin]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Theres a better one than that.

This is Vinnie's idea that Jesus stayed within earshot, that he spoke loudly enough to God so that the three sleepers could here him and that the three sleepers were not really asleep.

Yet again:

:rolleyes:


spin

[gregor]

I'm more interested in how the disciples could sleep in this charged time.

Jesus: "I'm about to be arrested and something bad may happen."

Peter: "Ok, wake me when it's over."

[spin]

Originally posted by gregor
I'm more interested in how the disciples could sleep in this charged time.

Too much old wine. After a few skins of it and you'll have no nerve ends left. You could fall asleep at the drop of a turban.


spin

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by spin
This is Vinnie's idea that Jesus stayed within earshot, that he spoke loudly enough to God so that the three sleepers could here him and that the three sleepers were not really asleep.

Yet again:

:rolleyes:


spin

Nice caricature. Why don't you address my actual statements? ecause you are incompetent and uninformed when it comes to scholarly studies of Early Christian writings.

You naively, in your one-dimensional skepticism and apparent disdain for Christianity, read history with no depth or sense of context or historical realism. Treating historical incidents like one dimensional cut-outs will not work.

On historical grounds the whole account is suspect. On strictly "apologtical vs skeptical" grounds it is possible to harmonize the portraits. Mark only has like one statement of Jesus which was supposedly given over the duration of an hour.

The account is certainly possible as it stands. Historically, it is impluasible for the reasons I articulated. But that is something you are incapable of. Eyerolling is your specialty.

Vinnie

[NOGO]

spin
This is Vinnie's idea that Jesus stayed within earshot, that he spoke loudly enough to God so that the three sleepers could here him and that the three sleepers were not really asleep.



Vinnie
Nice caricature. Why don't you address my actual statements? ecause you are incompetent and uninformed when it comes to scholarly studies of Early Christian writings.


Somebody lost his cool here.

See below what Vinnie says when he has both feet on the ground.


Vinnie
Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up to them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said.

We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission. Most modern readers accept this, since the story is presented smoothly and authoritatively, without noting the absence of evidence. Ancient author's wrote in this way--only more so."

[Vinnie]

Spin, in two posts in row in response to me (here and in the gospel reliability thread) has 1) done nothing but roll his eyes, and 2) misrepresent and caricature my actual positions.

Yes Mark is more likely than not supplementing his narrative with this saying (that he very well may have created). But the reasoning is not because "the disciples couldn't have heard it." This is false on both historical and apologetic grounds. We know the entire sequence of the narrative is framed virtually paralleling its OT partner. Thus, if anything, all we would be looking for from the start, as historians, is a nugget embedded within the narrative.

Vinnie

[spin]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Spin, in two posts in row in response to me (here and in the gospel reliability thread) has 1) done nothing but roll his eyes, and 2) misrepresent and caricature my actual positions.

This I gather is a misrepresentation:

This is Vinnie's idea that Jesus stayed within earshot, that he spoke loudly enough to God so that the three sleepers could here him and that the three sleepers were not really asleep.

:rolleyes:

Yes Mark is more likely than not supplementing his narrative with this saying (that he very well may have created). But the reasoning is not because "the disciples couldn't have heard it." This is false on both historical and apologetic grounds. We know the entire sequence of the narrative is framed virtually paralleling its OT partner. Thus, if anything, all we would be looking for from the start, as historians, is a nugget embedded within the narrative.

One cannot assume that there is such a nugget as Vinnie does, unless one stops being a historian. What is the nugget in the life of Ebion? To answer my rhetorical question, there isn't one. Tertullian's Ebion was completely made up -- though I wouldn't accuse Tertullian of doing so.


spin

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by spin
This I gather is a misrepresentation:

This is Vinnie's idea that Jesus stayed within earshot, that he spoke loudly enough to God so that the three sleepers could here him and that the three sleepers were not really asleep.

:rolleyes:



What is the nugget in the life of Ebion? To answer my rhetorical question, there isn't one. Tertullian's Ebion was completely made up -- though I wouldn't accuse Tertullian of doing so.


spin

Guy with reading comprehension problem: "One cannot assume that there is such a nugget as Vinnie does, unless one stops being a historian."

What Vinnie actually said: Thus, if anything, all we would be looking for from the start, as historians, is a nugget embedded within the narrative.

I never ASSUMED there was or wasn't. Stop misrepresenting me.

Vinnie

[spin]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Guy with reading comprehension problem: "One cannot assume that there is such a nugget as Vinnie does, unless one stops being a historian."

What Vinnie actually said: Thus, if anything, all we would be looking for from the start, as historians, is a nugget embedded within the narrative.

I never ASSUMED there was or wasn't. Stop misrepresenting me.

This is a finesse, Vinnie, but perhaps you meant what you are now saying, and you can somehow divine where there is such a nugget, if there is one, . . . on purely internal grounds.

Working in history involves starting with given historical data and proceeding onward. Without the stepping stone of given historical data there is nowhere to go.


spin

[sharon45]

when jesus was in the garden before his capture, he prayed to god, asking him if there was any other way. if jesus in fact was god, wouldn't he know that that was the only way?Yes, of course he would have, but that is just a very small 'tip' from an extremely large 'iceberg' of real problems within the NT in regards to jesus and god, either as separate or as one. No one could ever hope to explain the impossibility of the trinity, (let alone show anything in the way of true evidence), and the many moments of outright further stupidity from both jesus and god whether from within the christian bible or from some other 'christian' related text.