sighhswolf

Second, I infer from your mocking tone that you would believe yourself to be able to face such a prospect with far more courage and bravado. I wonder what the evidence for that might be.

Third, I infer from your mocking tone that your original post was as devoid of sincerity (though that was obvious from the start) as your interpretation was of understanding. But keep trying.

Thanks for the verses Katellagen.
Number 2 point above...hum yep that's what I said alright.
And why would I say that do you think?
Well, if this person was god/son of man/son of god it would seem to me that he already knew the outcome of this trial.
He would know that at the end he would be exhaulted and the suffering would not last very long......with the highest prize he could receive
awaiting him. (according to myth)
If you have a higher purpose in your actions or inactions that will eventually lead you to a position of power and control why question something that you know is only a temporary situation? Do you not endure for the greater victory?
And if I were god, I think I could have come up with a better plan than dying, as a sacrifice to myself, to atone for the sins of others.
So yes I think I could have faced the situation without fear if I was god and knew the outcome, so I really dont think that the story would have happened the way it was recorded in the canonical gospels. It would seem that the story was embellished with emotion to grant the character a more humanlike demeanor, and collect pity from the reader.

Now I do see the point of picking your battles,
to run away today so that you may live and fight tommorrow.

Number 3 point......Been trying many years and have no answers, just interpretations and inferences as yours above.

What I find interesting is that there are so many conflicting views and statements contained in the biblical accounts from supposed eyewitness.
How would anyone know what Jesus said and did in the garden, when they were not there?
How would anyone know what Jesus said in prayer?
It is inferred that the image of this person as portrayed in biblical text leading up to his execution was written by someone who actually saw and heard Jesus pray and knew him to be afraid.
Now if a person writes a generalization of an interpretation of an actual event, there would not be precise wording of what was said.

Unless you were inside the mind of the person of whom you are documenting, at the time of the events, you cannot know the exact motivations of the individual in question.

Do I mock Jesus? No, I mock the account that was written concernng this event, because no one could have known what Jesus was saying and doing unless they had been with him side by side.
I'm not totally convinced that any of this story ever took place, and remain skeptical about the documentation of events much less the motivational factors of the players, when we know now that the gospel accounts were not written from first hand experiences.

Christians take verses from Biblical text that support their ideal version of this story, yet there are verses like the ones I quoted that are a part of the text, whether you like it or not.
They exist they are written with the same authority as what you quoted.
The ambigous nature of the gospels provide substantiation for any premise the reader is looking to apply.

I look at scripture from the viewpoint of a non-believer and I can find contradictions throughout
the entire Bible.
Christians are reading with the specific purpose
of bolstering their faith and can site verse after verse of scripture to validate their position.

Every reader will find what they WANT to find, or
quote scripture for the specific purpose of forwarding their personal concepts and/or convictions.
This is the main thrust, why does the scriptures provide ammunition for each side?
This is a supposedly god inspired work, the deeds and actions recorded by men and inspired by a perfect divine being.
Why then is it not a perfect divine vehicle whose meaning and historic value would not be subject to interpretation?
Wolf

seebs

The text provides support for both sides, along with examples, in the hopes that readers will, rather than picking one and clinging to it for dear life, think about the ways in which each approach addresses the world, and maybe start forming an overall strategy, and thinking for themselves.

Empirically, this is not one of the most effective strategies. However, dozens (hundreds!) of religions have texts which try to teach people to think, and it appears to be genuinely impossible.

sighhswolf

Good point seebs, and one with substance.
It never fails to amaze me that there are so many different interpretations of the same passages from one document.

And my point is simply that I doubt the actual validity of the work/word as being inspired by a perfect divine being based on the ambigousness of the text.
What I see is an inconsistancy within the framework of the conceptual premise it is supposed
to represent.
The storytellers themselves cannot agree on the personalities represented much less the motivations of the characters.
Wolf

ex-preacher

I was taught in seminary that the three most important things in determining meaning are:
1. context
2. context
3. context.

Luke 12:4 is merely a lead-in for the kicker.

Luke 12:5 "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

Jesus sought to motivate his followers by threatening them with something more frightening than brutal Romans or ill-tempered Jewish leaders - hell.

Fear is indeed one of the cornerstones of biblical Christianity.

Seeker196

"Yes, I tell you, fear him"

Ah yes, Christianity, where fear is love and love fear.

katellagen

You're welcome. Did you notice the progression of events in the narrative? Did you see that given the context, John 7:1 of which you alleged an apparent contradiction, really doesn't say much more than Jesus didn't go out of his way to get killed prematurely? Did you note that immediately after that, he in fact went to Jerusalem, that he had already predicted his death there and yet set out resolutely to go there? Did you see that he didn't remain hidden while he was there but that he spoke publically in the temple in the face of his would be executioners? Did you recognize that your search for a fearful or cowering Jesus has no textual basis?

The texts you cite fit the flow of the narrative quite naturally. You have to work real hard to make them into a contradiction of everything else Jesus said and did regarding speaking the truth without fear. Is it now clear to you that fear was not Jesus' motivation - or at least that you have no basis for asserting such? I ask because I didn't see you address these things in your response.

Unless you have further assertions - ones that you can substantiate - I'm sure you will conclude with me that the fair response to your initial questions would be as follows:

Yes, your interpretation here is correct.

He certainly was.

Absolutely!

I think it's clear from the foregoing that this charge against the integrity of Jesus on this matter fails as having no merit.

Now concerning your problems with the Gethsemane narrative, you said:

This is true. He did.

Hebrews 12
2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The joy of accomplishing his purpose is what motivated him to endure the torture and shame of the cross. You are correct.

Yes. And he did. But none of this denies his true humanity - a humanity that could and did truly suffer.

Writing 700+ years prior to the events, Isaiah portrays vividly the fact of his humanity and his suffering.

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [1] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [2]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the Lord 's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes [3] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [4] and be satisfied [5] ;
by his knowledge [6] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [7]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [8]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

To establish, in the face of the evidence to the contrary, that his suffering was not real and profound, or that the joy of the result of it would nullify the pain of it, would need more than a mere assertion. (I recommend you try to persuade your wife that giving birth to your children could not have been painful given the joyous result. On second thought, don't try that.) In fact, Isaiah uses that very analogy regarding the Messiah.

C'mon Wolf, now you're being silly. You're not trying to establish historical fact on the basis of what you would do if you were a being of whom you say there is no evidence, and whose existence you deny! The fact is, if there is no god, and you were god, you would not be and would therefore do nothing. If God is, and you were Him, you would have done exactly what He has done.

If you want to imagine yourself as a god of your own making than you can project whatever you want to regarding such a "god". But we would both know you were not talking about ontological or hisorical reality, and such conjecture would be absolutely pointless. If I were to say, because I find your previous statement silly, "if I were Wolf, I would not have said that", this projection of my own inclination would have precisely zero bearing on the reality of what you in fact, have said. And to debate on that basis would get us nowhere. So let's talk about what is in evidence, and not about your preferences. Agreed? (BTW, if this sounds less than respectful, that is not my intention. I'm not trying to hammer you with logic, only trying to move out of the way what is irrelevant.)

I must not have been clear here. My question was, given the reality of who you are (not, if you were God), do you think you would face what was before Jesus with more courage and less emotion? (Remember, this was in reference to your mocking portrayal of the Gethsemane narrative.) After I posed the question, I read what you wrote elsewhere about what you recently endured with your Mom's battle with cancer, which I was very sorry to hear - I lost my Dad to cancer about the same time - I imagine that there were some extremely distressing and emotional times. My main point here was: Is mockery of suffering either helpful or honest? I'm sure you agree it's not.

You may doubt that Jesus the man existed, I don't know. But isn't the real stumbling block the claim that he was God? Why would they embellish the story to make him more humanlike if their goal was to make you think he was God? (And can you give one piece of evidence - textually or otherwise - that would substantiate your assertion, or is it completely groundless?)

Sure it can elicit pity. But why would these writers want to purposefully create a pitiful god which would only create an obstacle for the progress of their religion? They understood that such a message of a "weak" God was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." (I Cor.1:23) This was a problem for everybody. Why would they purposefully hinder their purpose? The human tendency would be just the opposite! (But again, the real question is whether there is evidence for your assertion. There is certainly much evidence against it.)

Good! We're agreed. Although nowhere does it say he ran. Such an assertion, and it's implications, would be gratuitous.

As opposed to your interpretations and inferences?

Who said no one was there?

Mark 14
32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."
35Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36"Abba,[1] Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Luke 22:41 indicates "a little farther" was "about a stone's throw beyond them." (The word for "stone" here (litho),is not the word for pebble - there's another word for that, but is used for a buliding stone, millstone, stone tablets, tombstones, stones comparable to a loaf of bread in size.) IOW, he was not far from them.

Hebrews 5
7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

With the anguish he felt, it's hard to imagine that this is not descriptive of his prayers in the garden, in the face of death. Surely, this would have been heard by the nearby disciples before they fell asleep.

Yes. Or preserved orally. The Jews were meticulous in their preservation of such things.

Not afraid, but in deep anguish and sorrow.

Matthew 26
37He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39Going 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."


You have to assume it's "a generalization of an interpretation" of an actual event, against the evidence of the text. They were there! And who says that even a general accounting of an actual event can't contain actual and accurate (though not exhaustive) quotes? Again, your charge falls.

Or unless he told you (see Mt.26:37-39 above). BTW, the recorded words are very basic and pretty easily understood. It's not everything he said, but you've given NO justifiable reason to assume he didn't say it!

Good! glad to hear it.

I think we've dealt with this.

I take the verses you quoted also. They not only fit perfectly, but are essential to understanding the flow of the narrative. What do you do with the others?

This is true only if the reader is being dishonest and selective. A person may be able to string together a series of verses to suit their purposes, but the Bible is not a series of disconnected verses. Taken as a whole and in context, it is quite coherent.

To be fair you should not present yourself as the objective observer and the Christian as having as agenda to support their preconcieved ideas.

Why not say that as a non-believer you look at scripture with the specific purpose of finding contradictions? or that Christians looking for truth, find that the Bible is a coherent and well-attested source of truth and wisdom?

May I suggest the reason you don't say this is because of prejudice. That you just can't imagine someone honestly looking at the evidence coming to a different conclusion than you. And isn't this the very attitude you hate when it's directed at you? My suggestion could be wrong. It's only a possibility. But it's a problem we can all have, and the wording of your above quote certainly allows for the possibility.

Wolf, you're not advocating the need for special and immediate revelation are you?

What do you know of on a personal, human, historical, or literary level that is not subject to interpretation? Even science engages in interpreting various laws, actons, phenomena, etc. in trying to discover coherence. We must always interpret. The only thing which does not require my interpretation is that which originated with me (i.e., I know what I meant by that statement! But you had to engage in interpretation to undrstand it.)

Why would that which originated with God be any different? It could not be otherwise unless He directly and immediately revealed it to your understanding. In that case, there would be NO possibility of verification, and the mind and will would have no role in the pursuit of the greatest knowledge anyone can have - the knowledge of God. He has chosen to let you, as a complete human being, use all the faculties he has put at your disposal in order to find and know the truth which he has given in the world and in His Word. The honest searcher will approach both honestly, and will find true knowledge in both. The rest will find ammunition to use against their enemies. May the former prosper.

Peace

sighhswolf

Katellagen,
I read you last post and will comment as soon as possible, it may take awhile to get back to ya.
Wolf

Grizzly

Katellegen,

While we wait for Sighhswolf to respond, I would like to ask two questions.

1) Is Jesus really God?

1a) If Jesus is God, why all the angst? He knows everything that is going to happen and He knows that He really isn't going to die - just sorta be inconvenienced for a weekend.

1b) If Jesus isn't God, then why are people worshipping Him?

2) Why does God require blood sacrifices?

Thanks

NOGO

Claim coherence is more difficult than showing it.
The most important event in the gospels is surely the resurection.
Why is it that they cannot agree on what happened on that day.
Compare Mt 28 and John 20
These two stories cannot both be true. One of them was fabricated.
It is a lie.


Mt 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me."
etc.

John 20
1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first;
5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in.
6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there,
7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed.
9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
10 So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
etc.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Jayman

sighhswolf:

Just because a person attempts to avoid death does not necessarily mean they are afraid of death. A soldier going into battle may not fear his death (he may even expect it), however, he will not try to get killed.