Author Topic: Gethsemone  (Read 1628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Gethsemone
« on: May 03, 2013, 09:39:35 PM »
Less a contradiction, more an...inconsistency, IMHO.  Help me out.

After the last supper, Jesus brings his posse to the Garden of Gethsemone to pray.  They all fall asleep.  Jesus then prays by himself, begging god to "take this cup away from me..."

how did the author know this??

the author was asleep at the time.  After this episode, Jesus was taken by the Romans, brought before Pilate/Herod/Pilate and killed.  He did not have time (nor, I'd imagine, inclination) to speak to anyone about this, adn it was an extremely vulnerable (weak, arguably) moment that I can't see ANYone sharing that so close to it happening.  So how'd he know???
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1722
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2013, 10:29:54 PM »
I remember being pretty young when I first raised an eyebrow over the "why hast thou forsaken me?" apologetics long before I knew such a thing even existed. IIRC, we were watching some 70's bible epic tv productions, and it must have been near Easter; there was the crucifixion scene, Jesus asked why god had abandoned him and then he died. I can't remember exactly how my mom explained it, but I recall thinking it was a crock.

To be fair though, that might have been more about tv than bible. Once you get a visual image attached to something, it's hard to think of it outside that framework.

Crap, I have to go look it up now.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10312
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2013, 10:39:36 PM »
That's where the Holy Spook comes in.  He inspired the writing of the gospels thru man. See?  There is always a way around the problem areas.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1722
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2013, 10:40:13 PM »
Yep, that's more or less how I remembered it.
Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

And you are correct as well. In Mark 14, Jesus even rebuked them for sleeping, twice. If they were all asleep, who was the recorder?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2013, 11:15:33 PM »
Fair question. This seems like a reasonable explantion:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gethdistancefromjesus.html
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline grant

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2013, 07:20:31 AM »
How could that be possibly considered "reasonable"?

Quote
The fact that we are not given an extended account of Jesus' prayers in the Garden is in and of itself an indication that we have been given a valid, eyewitness account of what the disciples did see and hear that painful night.

Fact? Based on what?

You on the whoopee weed again MM?
What if the hokey pokey is what its all about?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2013, 07:54:50 AM »
I'm actually not sure what aspect of that linked explantion seems dodgy to you, even though you have highlighted part of it. Can you clarify?

The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline grant

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2013, 05:53:54 AM »
Just     gimmee    some     "facts".

Start with why any conversation in the "Garden" is considered to have been a real event.

We can then move on to such further idiocies as "how far, exactly, was Jesus from his three disciples?". Or "They would have struggled to stay awake--but would have eventually fallen asleep due to sadness;" or "The fact that we are not given an extended account of Jesus' prayers in the Garden is in and of itself an indication that we have been given a valid, eyewitness account of what the disciples did see and hear that painful night."

Explain away!
What if the hokey pokey is what its all about?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2013, 06:17:16 AM »
I thought you were questioning the explanation i gave to the OP. Of course that makes no sense if you dismiss the historical validity of the NT.

I don't have the inclination to start a discussion on NT reliability at the present time.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12191
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2013, 08:58:55 AM »
That is just one example of the use of an omniscient narrator in the NT.  It is used quite often in literature and we modern people who are used to reading novels that use that device think nothing of it.  But it is a big problem if you want to claim the gospels are eye witness accounts. 

Just staying within Matt26, the chapter with Gethsememe, we have several examples. 

26:3-5 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

How would the writer of Matt know that?

26:14-15 14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver.  

How would the writer of Matt know that?

26:48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.”

How would the writer of Matt know that?  A true eye witness may not have even known Judas had betrayed him and certainly would not have know there was a signal. 

In 26:58 it seems as if the writer was aware he needed a witness so he had Peter follow the captive jesus H all the way to the courtyard of the high priests.  Does it seem odd that he would be able to infiltrate so far into their HQ so as to be able to hear their plotting?

This kind of problem is all over the NT and even the OT.  Moses' funeral is described in a story supposedly written by moses.  And which apostle was it that witnessed satan tempting jesus H?

It's amusing that the in the link MM provided, they ignorantly call it a "know it all narrator".  Morons.  They also try to say that the fact that Matt is so obviously flawed is a reason to think it is legitimate.  Yeah, good answer. If a bad writer is the mark of authenticity, then Interview with a Vampire must also be a documentary. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6608
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2013, 09:49:07 AM »
Here are the three versions of the prayers in Gethsemane. Each one ends with the arrival of Judas:

M'r:14:26: And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
[…] [edit: this verse and those before show that all the Disciples went to Gethsemane]

M'r:14:32: And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.
M'r:14:33: And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
M'r:14:34: And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

[Edit: so at this point there are Peter and James and John who are accompanying him, whilst the rest are sitting in another group somewhere further away]

M'r:14:35: And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
M'r:14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
M'r:14:37: And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

[edit: Now, note the use of “thou”. Remember that Peter (a.k.a Simon) was with James and John. There is no indication that James and John were sleeping.]

M'r:14:38: Watch ye [edit: you will see that “ye” is the plural. He must be addressing Peter (a.k.a.Simon) and James and John] and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.
M'r:14:39: And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.
M'r:14:40: And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.

[Edit. The author has made a mistake. The author says “he found them asleep again” but “they had not been asleep, only Peter (a.k.a.Simon) had.]

M'r:14:43: Judas arrives with a crowd.


M'r:14:41: And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
M'r:14:42: Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.


[edit: Here, Jesus is only speaking to Peter, James and John.]

The Matthew version follows the same starting script. The Disciples split into 2 groups:
M't:26:36: Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
M't:26:37: And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
M't:26:38: Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
M't:26:39: And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
M't:26:40: And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?


[Edit: all those in the closer group (Peter, James and John) were asleep (plural "ye") but only Peter was spoken to.]

M't:26:41: Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

[Edit, note the use of the plural “ye”= (Peter, James and John)]

M't:26:42: He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
M't:26:43: And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
M't:26:44: And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
M't:26:45: Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.


[Edit: this time he either addresses all the Disciples or just the closer group (Peter, James and John) and, at this stage they were awake.]

M't:26:46: Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.
M't:26:47: Judas arrives with a crowd.

[Edit, this is said to all. However, in v 45, he has told them to sleep and, in the same breath v.46, he tells them to get up! This is extremely unlikely and seems to be a fault of the narrator.]


Luke’s Version:
Lu:22:40: And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
Lu:22:41: And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,


[Edit: Here there is only one group.]

Lu:22:42: Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Lu:22:43: And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Lu:22:44: And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Lu:22:45: And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,
Lu:22:46: And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.


[Edit: all were asleep.]

Lu:22:47 – Judas arrives with a crowd of people.

[Edit: Jesus only interrupts them once, not three times and all of them were asleep and all at a distance.]

The only thing that is consistent is that Judas came with a crowd. It seems that the various narrators are giving their own version of events. Compare this to the confusing array of people who arrived at Jesus’s tomb, and what they said they saw. Compare also with the story of The Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness, where the narrator, who describes all things accurately, could not have been there.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 09:52:30 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2013, 10:15:31 AM »
I think the more curious aspect is that Luke notices that god sends an angel to comfort Jesus, whereas Mark and Matthew do not mention such a notable occurrence.  That, and the discrepancy in whether he left most of them and took two with him, or left them all and went only a short distance away.

The ones that Screwtape pointed out are, I think, more significant.  Who informed the writers of conversations that (1)they could not have heard in person and (2)they would have not likely been informed of?  Who would have passed on the banal particulars of the discussion the priests were having, or even the specifics of Christ's conversation with Pilate?

It does fit in with the idea that the gospels are written so as to make Christianity as palatable to the Romans as possible.  Pilate, known to be a very brutal governor, becomes a thoughtful and cautious man in the gospels, seeking every possible way to free Jesus from being harmed.  The Jewish priests, on the other hand, are scheming and blasphemous scum, who readily accept the guilt for killing Jesus and seek to force Pilate's hand by questioning his loyalty to Caesar.  The gospels present Christ's crucifixion as a tale where the evil Jewish priests practically rip him from the kindly Roman governor's hand and drag him to the cross.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2013, 05:31:30 PM »
 

Just staying within Matt26, the chapter with Gethsememe, we have several examples. 

26:3-5 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

How would the writer of Matt know that?

I guess he may have learned this subsequent to Jesus' death. Possibly from one of those involved in the planning who was completely freaked out that Jesus was suddenly alive again. Possibly from Judas before he killed himself.


26:14-15 14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver.  

How would the writer of Matt know that?

As above


26:48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.”

How would the writer of Matt know that?  A true eye witness may not have even known Judas had betrayed him and certainly would not have know there was a signal. 

As above.


In 26:58 it seems as if the writer was aware he needed a witness so he had Peter follow the captive jesus H all the way to the courtyard of the high priests.  Does it seem odd that he would be able to infiltrate so far into their HQ so as to be able to hear their plotting?

Maybe. Maybe not. He didn't get away with it in any case, remember? Denied he knew Jesus when accused.

I guess maybe Matthew may have made that up to go for a bit of realism. Doesn't seem likely to me though.


This kind of problem is all over the NT and even the OT.  Moses' funeral is described in a story supposedly written by moses.  And which apostle was it that witnessed satan tempting jesus H?

The moses thing..that is strange. I have no idea.

I don't see why Jesus can't have told the apostles about His temptation.

Clearly, the apostles were not strictly eye-witnesses to everything. As in Luke, there appears to have been investigation and knowledge obtained from other sources.



It's amusing that the in the link MM provided, they ignorantly call it a "know it all narrator". 

Actually, I think they were alluding to Mark being called that by critics.


They also try to say that the fact that Matt is so obviously flawed is a reason to think it is legitimate.  Yeah, good answer.

Mark, not Matthew. (in the link I provided). And I think it's a valid point. The inconsistencies have always served to invalidate, in my mind, claims that the NT writers were part of a shared deception.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2013, 06:41:45 AM »
Mark, not Matthew. (in the link I provided). And I think it's a valid point. The inconsistencies have always served to invalidate, in my mind, claims that the NT writers were part of a shared deception.

You, and the others in this thread, do realize that this event never happened, and that Jesus as a person most likely never existed, right?  These are "gospels," as in fairy tales.

It would be as if Star Wars was shown for a few weeks at theaters, with no copies or scripts kept.  Then, this month on the 36th anniversary, all the viewers wrote down the story they saw in May 1977.  How many different "gospel" accounts of Star Wars would there be?  And that was just 36 years ago.  The gospels were written, at the earliest, 70-90 years after the supposed events, according to most bible historians. 

I found a reference in google books where an author said the name Matthew wasn't even associated with the gospel of Matthew until about 100 years after it was first written.  Now I can't find the reference.  But, when I type "gospel of matthew" in the search bar at google books, I got 249,000 hits.  What are the aliens, who seeded our DNA here, going to think when they come back to assess our progress, and find we've wasted all this intellectual time and energy on our fairy tales?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12191
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2013, 08:44:03 AM »
I guess...

Well, if we are speculating like that, why not guess he was told by angels?  Or perhaps he was a mutant with highly sensitive psychic abilities?  Or that he used a oujia board to divine the truth?  But if we are just guessing like that, then I prefer to guess that he summoned dark spirits from beyond the void by sacrificing infants at an altar of obsidian.  That is just as scriptural as "some guy was freaked out and told him". 

Seriously Miles, why bother with supposition?  It makes you look like a desperate boob.  And why would the explanation not be included in the gospel?  I mean, he bothered to explain Peter sneaking around and spying?  Why does it not say where the other information came from?  That's rhetorical.  There is no way you could have an answer so please don't indulge in more fantasy.

And even if your guesses are correct, it means this is not the first hand, eyewitness account xians claim it is.  It means a lot of it is second hand at best.

In 26:58 it seems as if the writer was aware he needed a witness so he had Peter follow the captive jesus H all the way to the courtyard of the high priests.  Does it seem odd that he would be able to infiltrate so far into their HQ so as to be able to hear their plotting?

Maybe. Maybe not. He didn't get away with it in any case, remember? Denied he knew Jesus when accused.

1. whether he "got away with it" is irrelevant to my point.
2. depending how you look at it, he did get away with it.  The jews didn't arrest him and crucify him too.
3. this further erodes the idea that all this is first hand, eyewitness account.  Was Matt with Peter when this happened?  Or did he just write down what Peter told him?  If the former, why is it told in the third person?  If the latter, you are back to second hand accounts. 


The moses thing..that is strange. I have no idea.

It is only strange if you are bent on believing in Iron Age traditions.  It is not strange at all and, in fact, completely expected if you look at it from my perspective.  At best, Moses was a real guy who did some things and later, fantastical stories about him were contrived.  At worst, he is a completely fictional character.

I don't see why Jesus can't have told the apostles about His temptation.

He could.  But it doesn't say he did.  And if he did, it is not the first hand account xians like to claim it is.  And that leaves open the possibility that it did not actually happen.  It could have been a metaphor.  It could have been an exaggeration.  It could have been an outright lie.

Clearly, the apostles were not strictly eye-witnesses to everything.

Clearly.  So let's remember this in the future when we have our hackles up about the accuracy of the bible.

As in Luke, there appears to have been investigation and knowledge obtained from other sources.

That's using the words "investigation" and "knowledge" rather liberally. 

Actually, I think they were alluding to Mark being called that by critics.

He wasn't called a "know it all" by critics.  The literary device is "omniscient narrator" and while it may be a criticism in the negative sense from their perspective, it is also simply a fact.  And the "scholars"[1] you linked either do not understand the term or are trying to be deceptive.

The book does not matter. Whether Matt or Mark or Luke or Moroni, the use of omniscient narrator points to the fact that the NT is not an eyewitness account. 

As for the inconsistencies implying authenticity, you have it wrong and have entered a strawman.  Nobody has said it was a conspiracy to deceive.  I am sure all the idiots who wrote this stuff heartily believed it. But that does not mean a word of it is true. 

It also puts to rest the idea that any of them were guided by a ghost too. If they were divinely guided, their testimony should match.  It does not.  So at best, they were writing their experiences with the same flawed memories as the rest of us.  This really is a no-win for you.

 1. I use the term sarcastically here
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6608
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2013, 09:53:59 AM »
As I see it the Bible is a straightforward narrative that in a mixture of history and fiction that has been further complicated by the addition of a deity or three.

Magicmiles explanations are laudable and, to an extent, probable if one accepts that there was someone there taking all this down on his iPad whilst other people noted their observations at various other points in the life of Christ.

The fact is that there was never anyone there who later wrote of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#General_epistles

The assumption is that because literacy was low but the need for entertainment was high, the tradition was oral. This means that “Oh yes, they all went off to some place and then Judas and the mob found him.” eventually gets translated into many words expressing the solemnity and noble divinity of the episode and also bits are added to fall in line with the OT. This is how we got stories of old of great heroes and is why we have Superman today.

When it became clear that the stories, increasing in fictional content, were popular, some scribes would turn a shekel by writing them out or some rich man would employ a scribe to collect and write them down for him.

Like episodes of a TV series, the scriptlines become increasingly unlikely, until the “Jumping the Shark” moment occurs and a halt is called and the whole story reviewed and toned down. (Remember the pseudographia? That was what didn’t make the directors’ cut.)

The unfortunate thing was that all these scribes and story tellers never had a conference at which the “real story” was hammered out. You can imagine why:

A: “And Jesus turned him from being a donkey into a man again…”
B: “Bollocks, no one will believe that! Who told you that? Are you stupid? He did walk on water though…”
C: “Walk on water? You can do that, can you? A man can walk on water? How’s that going to work? Look, He just made people who were dead come alive again and he did it a couple of time. Can we accept that as a starting point?
D: “I hadn’t heard that. I always say that he was born of a virgin…”
B: “God! If I hear that again I’ll stab you! We all of us say that… except Ananias there who says “he just appeared one day aged about 30.” And Ananias is an idiot.”
C: “Look, we’re getting nowhere. These Gospels won’t write themselves! What say we all write down some bulletpoints and then present them tomorrow and we’ll vote on them?”


If there were any truth in these stories, we would expect to see many references from the time from the Romans and the Jews – we don’t have them. And the conference did not occur until the Council of Nicaea (from which the above is taken verbatim.)

Does it not seem more likely that Jesus is some mythical figure, like Robin Hood, who is the archetypical hero upon whom all wisdom and healing is bestowed to represent a fairer, juster society? And that all the NT is a collection of these stories.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2013, 10:01:05 AM »
does anyone know why jesus didn't write this stuff down himself (aside from not being real) This would have solved a lot of speculation and misinterpretation

Offline Bluecolour

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2013, 08:12:37 PM »
^No it wouldn't. Try and imagine for a moment what that narrative would sound like.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6491
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2013, 10:04:41 PM »
Well for starters, it would all be in first person (well, second or whichever one of the Trinity Jesus is) instead of third person.

Unless Jesus was writing about stuff like Judas dying, that he was not present for, but knew about from the Holy Spirit telling him about it simultaneously. Or he had someone trustworthy like Peter Skype the events to him as they happened. Even I can Skype. We are talking about a god here, after all. God is awesome and can do anything.

I'm betting it was Skype.  :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2013, 04:57:54 AM »
^No it wouldn't. Try and imagine for a moment what that narrative would sound like.

If Katy Price can manage to write an autobiography the most powerful being in the universe should be able to manage it.

As nogodsforme says, a holy ghost writer could fill in the bits he wasn't there for

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2013, 12:49:59 PM »
^No it wouldn't. Try and imagine for a moment what that narrative would sound like.

If it was The Gospel According to Jesus, Regular Guy Masquerading as the Christ, then I figure it would sound like a lot of other ancient texts, only a lot more narcissistic.

If it was The Gospel According to Jesus, God Made Flesh, then I would expect it to be a chronicle that was incomparably amazing, worded so magnificently as to leave no doubt that it had been written by the hand of god, and not by fallible men who had a penchant for forgetting details and knowing conversations that they were almost certainly not privy to.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1722
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2013, 05:58:22 PM »
^No it wouldn't. Try and imagine for a moment what that narrative would sound like.

I imagine an unambiguous instruction manual. It could still even be presented as a novel in keeping with the original, but yeah, that's what I imagine.

What do you imagine it would sound like?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 08:31:33 PM »
He shoulda got Lupe Fiasco to write it, then and only then would it be so magnificent that I would think it had a supernatural origin...

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 06:14:51 AM »
If Katy Price can manage to write an autobiography the most powerful being in the universe should be able to manage it.

As nogodsforme says, a holy ghost writer could fill in the bits he wasn't there for

This is what I have always thought about muhammad, gabriel and the koran.  Various pdf copies of the koran are available online, and the sizes vary, but it seems the better versions are a little under 10 megabytes.  The fact that I now have the ability, aided by non-deity types like Gates, Jobs and Dell, to download it in less than 10 minutes (including boot time, virus scan, google search and download), is primary evidence the koran is man-made fiction.  The fact that it took 23 years to receive and record the message is a dead giveaway. 

Sam Harris has said it best, perhaps.  He says christians and muslims worship gods that wrote books.  They didn't write movies, record DVDs, encode software, etc.

The appeal to a higher authority has always been one of the best sales techniques, especially if the higher authority is the written word.  And look how well the sales technique has worked out.  Just visit the Vatican.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline KingofBashan

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2013, 09:38:39 PM »
So how'd he know???

Jesus was with his disciples 40 days after his resurrection but before his ascension. He may have filled in the details then.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6491
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2013, 10:34:57 AM »
So, why doesn't the bible say that?

"and then Jesus, (played here by Keanu Reeves) came unto to them and spake thusly: Duuuudes, I was in the, you know, garden and it was like, whoa..."
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gethsemone
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2013, 02:31:25 PM »
So how'd he know???

Jesus was with his disciples 40 days after his resurrection but before his ascension. He may have filled in the details then.

Those 40 days would have been a most awesome time for jeezus (Keanu) to write his own "gospel" right then and there on some technologically-advanced device that would last for all eternity and make an iPad look like camel dung... 
Instead, he left it up to some locals who couldn't get around to writing down fractured, unharmonized accounts of his "miraculous, earth-changing" deeds for 40-60 years??? 
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan