On the night of his arrest and crucifiction, Jesus goes off with some of his disciples in the Garden of Gathsemane to pray to his father. He leaves them off and asked them to stay awake and keep watch. He walks off into the distance and the blackness of the night to prays to his father. He spends some time all alone in emotional supplication to god. In fact, he is so distressed that he is said to shade tears of blood.

Now, given that jesus was all alone in the darkness of the night and that he himself never wrote a single word, and that his disciples were all fast asleep, how do we come to know exactly the words jesus is supposed to have said?

How do we come to know that he shade tears of blood?

therationa:

On the night of his arrest and crucifiction, Jesus goes off with some of his disciples in the Garden of Gathsemane to pray to his father. He leaves them off and asked them to stay awake and keep watch. He walks off into the distance and the blackness of the night to prays to his father. He spends some time all alone in emotional supplication to god. In fact, he is so distressed that he is said to shade tears of blood.

Now, given that jesus was all alone in the darkness of the night and that he himself never wrote a single word, and that his disciples were all fast asleep, how do we come to know exactly the words jesus is supposed to have said?

Luke 22:41 -> ' And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw'

I am sure you can hear a conversation taking place a stone's throw away, especially at night when sound travels farther.

How do we come to know that he shade tears of blood?

Luke 22:45 -> 'When Jesus ended his prayer, he got up and went to the disciples'

The disciples saw the blood on his forehead, since he came to them.

therationa:

Now, given that jesus was all alone in the darkness of the night and that he himself never wrote a single word, and that his disciples were all fast asleep, how do we come to know exactly the words jesus is supposed to have said?

How do we come to know that he shade tears of blood?

Perhaps you never read the Bible before. Good advice - pick up a copy and read it carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully: nor because you are looking for verses to "confirm" what you already made up your mind to believe before examining the facts; but because you want to understand for yourself what really occured from what you read.

Many books have been written by people who were never present at the scene of the particular events they narrate. Think of biographies of a few notable figures, for example (please note - I'm not speaking about religious works now). One could ask the same questions: "how do we come to know exactly the words Politician XYZ is supposed to have said" as stated in those classic historic works?

Nonetheless, in addition to the direct, simple answers offered by imhotep, when that question came to mind several years ago in my early faith life, I found answers in the following verses:

[list]Luke 24:27 - And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 1:1 - The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.[/list]

After the Resurrection, Jesus spent time discoursing with His disciples - does that ring a bell to you?

You started out deliberately seeking to "criticize" the Bible. Perhaps you should understand that so many have tried to do so on this Forum, and you won't be the last. But it amazes me that when you guys are asked to come forward and discuss the same surmizings you post, then nobody finds you in the same thread you opened to "criticize" the Bible.

Was that why you abandoned ship in the initial thread you opened today?

@Therationa,

Have you ever heard of something called revelation? Apostle Paul wasn't with among the 12 Disciples and yet he described what happened at the last Supper to the finest detail.

ermm - duh, maybe he told someome affter, or maybe someone overheard him, or maybe someone saw a vision and saw it happening, that s not too farfetched considering all the miracles that were recorded in the bible.\

P.s the tears of blood is figure of speech ok?,, like me saying i i laughed my head off my body when i read ur post

The is absolute no sense of verisimilitude in this story nor in your explanations, as contradictory as they may be. All you are left with are speculations as to what may have happened.

First, if the disciples were asleep, how could they have overheard him?

Second, it is stretch credulity to think that jesus would re-narrate incidents in his daily life with the hope that some (or was it all) would be written down 40-50 years later.

Thirdly, even you bible believer have no consistent explanation of the event. One of you said "tearing blood" was figure of speech another was it was real blood.

@therationa,

It is not enough to argue from silence - which is exactly what you are doing and have not applied your rational thinking in this instance to highlight your ideas intelligently. Rather, you waited to see the various possible sides to explaining the pointers to recording the events of that night, so you could whip yourself behind the excuse that we all sound "contradictory". Here is something for you to think about:

1. What about the analogy I offered you about biographies. Please sweep it as quickly under the carpet with another excuse.

2. What is wrong with someone "re-narrat(ing) incidents in his daily life"? Have biographies not been written by personal interviews of the subjects in those biographies?

3. How have you demonstrated a consistent position in the few entries you have made on the Forum so far? Example? Like scooting off between motherboards when you could not stay your position after answers greeted your first thread?

therationa:

The is absolute no sense of verisimilitude in this story nor in your explanations, as contradictory as they may be. All you are left with are speculations as to what may have happened.

First, if the disciples were asleep, how could they have overheard him?

Second, it is stretch credulity to think that jesus would re-narrate incidents in his daily life with the hope that some (or was it all) would be written down 40-50 years later.

Thirdly, even you bible believer have no consistent explanation of the event. One of you said "tearing blood" was figure of speech another was it was real blood.

Very good. We (like yourself and Mohammed) were not there with them, we are not witnesses to those events. But we have shown you how these events may have come to be recorded. We have shown you very natural and human possibilities, without eerie, magical connotations.

You also have to take into account the effect of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Church gained 3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost, preached by once dull and timid disciples. These disciples also spoke in tongues, so that all who heard them (including Mohammed's ancestors) understood what they were saying.

hmmm this looks like Alphazee reincarnated into therationa

Same M.O.,  same criticism, same writing style, same confusion. 

@ Poster

Wake up from your sleep.

Whts the essence of ur post? To condemn the bible? or to criticise christianity? Bullocks!!!!!!!!

All Sciptures were written by Inspiration of God. Holy Men wrote as they were Given direction From God. Moses was not there during Creation. Your view only shows how ignorant you are about the whole of Christianity and the Bible. Every verse in the Bible Was Spirit Breathed not from scientific or physical observation. Christianity is a spiritual relationship in which Spirit Beings(Born Again Christians) relate to God and Communicate with HIM through the Holy Ghost.
These questions you ask only shows that your Heart (Spirit) is Hungry For God and the TRUTH (VERITAS) which is Christ HIMSELF. ACCEPT HIM HE is YOUR ANSWER

The Wolves are out in force:
@Lekkimania:

Posted by: lekkimania
Insert Quote
All Sciptures were written by Inspiration of God. Holy Men wrote as they were Given direction From God. Moses was not there during Creation. Your view only shows how ignorant you are about the whole of Christianity and the Bible. Every verse in the Bible Was Spirit Breathed not from scientific or physical observation. Christianity is a spiritual relationship in which Spirit Beings(Born Again Christians) relate to God and Communicate with HIM through the Holy Ghost.
These questions you ask only shows that your Heart (Spirit) is Hungry For God and the TRUTH (VERITAS) which is Christ HIMSELF. ACCEPT HIM HE is YOUR ANSWER

How do you expalin Mark 12 Verse 29, compared to Trinity, which is not a word in any part of the bible? And don't be silly, just because a person ask a questionm does not mean more than the persons wants more than a simple and straight forward answer! Please answer the question and you have eternity to do it. But answer you must. Whether sincerely or just lying through yout teeth.

Posted by: Eclairs
@ Poster
Wake up from your sleep.

Whts the essence of your post? To condemn the bible? or to criticise christianity? Bullocks!!!!!!!!
Posted by: JeSoul
Insert Quote
hmmm this looks like Alphazee reincarnated into therationa

Same M.O., same criticism, same writing style, same confusion.

Even though JeSoul entry is just as weak, but it goes to some for of essence of whta the topic is, rather than Eclairs, who almost shouted his gut off, without saying anything! Talk about the gethsemane matter. Defend your religion, if you can. Afterall this is conversation, yet you guys are having none of it!

Very good. We (like yourself and The Great Prophet) were not there with them, we are not witnesses to those events. But we have shown you how these events may have come to be recorded. We have shown you very natural and human possibilities, without eerie, magical connotations.

You also have to take into account the effect of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Church gained 3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost, preached by once dull and timid disciples. These disciples also spoke in tongues, so that all who heard them (including The Great Prophet's ancestors) understood what they were saying.

Imhotep, this is your response to the incedent at the garden of gethsemane? Very well, then. Since you told us that you the Christians, us the Muslims and 'the great prophet,' (I wonder what and who this guy is talking about and referred to when he said "The great Prophet", were not there and did not witness the great events, then you really can show anything with 100% certainty. Hence your showing of recorded event, as you said, (May), can not be 100% and may just b 50%, at best. You are failing every time you put any argument forward about your book. You are never certain. You have a very weak belief in that book.

Great prophet's ancestors? Are these ancestors before the generations of the Great prophet? Weren't they supposed to have died? Could you tell us what languages were the tongues? Since they were heard and understood, what exactly were said? Are they in the Bible today or not? But the Holy spirit was to teach what Jesus did not teach and at the same time remind people what Jesus said: Tell me what did the Holy spirit teached and what did he reminded?

Posted by: stimulus
@therationa,
It is not enough to argue from silence - which is exactly what you are doing and have not applied your rational thinking in this instance to highlight your ideas intelligently. Rather, you waited to see the various possible sides to explaining the pointers to recording the events of that night, so you could whip yourself behind the excuse that we all sound "contradictory". Here is something for you to think about:

Were you expecting that you Christians will disagree among yourselves? Why and how do you have that at the back of your mind? Is it because you view thins differently?

1. What about the analogy I offered you about biographies. Please sweep it as quickly under the carpet with another excuse.

2. What is wrong with someone "re-narrat(ing) incidents in his daily life"? Have biographies not been written by personal interviews of the subjects in those biographies?

3. How have you demonstrated a consistent position in the few entries you have made on the Forum so far? Example? Like scooting off between motherboards when you could not stay your position after answers greeted your first thread?

Going by your Biographical example; Who interviewed Jesus, for this Biography? How many Biographers and why are the accounts so different from one to the other(s) in the ''Gospels' according tos?' It is you, Stimulus, who should be consistent, in your defense of your Book, religion and those who worship in thesame way. But of course, some of you do go against the mother of some of you: The Protestants claim that they are the true christians compared to the Catholics, yet they copied but just 7 Books from the Catholic Bible! And they replaced Jesus with his mother as the three in one!

Luke 24:27 - And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 1:1 - The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.

Luke 24;27, above is so ambiguious, since there was nothing about what he expounded about himself from what the old prophets said? Could it be there is another prophet, who will be the last prophet from the line of Children in the bloodline of Ibrahiim, and afterthat the only prophet that will come from the house of the Uncle of Israel, Ismail, from the blood line of Ibrahiim, will come, to seal Prophethood amd messengership? Could it also be that Jesus will proclaim the Oneness of God, as he did in Mark 12 Verse 29, yet those who claim to follow his way, will stubbornly reject it?

Act 1;1, is so clearly murky and shaky that anyone can say anything about it! For example, we do not know what Jesus did and taught, from this verse. But if the holy spirit was to remind people of what Jesus said, it must have been that they are tending to forget it or had completely forgotten it. If the Holy ghost was to teach what Jesus did not teach, then it seems as if people will have to be matured in spiritual understanding than when jesus was alive and did not teach it! Now since you use holy ghost here and some people use holy spirit, I will take it that they refer to the same entity; What did that entity, holy (Ghost)spirit reminded and teached anyof you in over 2000 years? I will simply say 1400 years. Please provide your answer directly and do not beg the questions. I do not have time for tap dancers.

Posted by: simmy
ermm - duh, maybe he told someome affter, or maybe someone overheard him, or maybe someone saw a vision and saw it happening, that s not too farfetched considering all the miracles that were recorded in the bible.\

P.s the tears of blood is figure of speech ok?,, like me saying i i laughed my head off my body when i read your post

Not too far fetched, you said? That gives an inkling of doubt! Man, I like your figure of speech; Like Trinity, Son god, Man god, etc are also figure of speech. You people are amazing.


Where is Dawid? I miss that guy! Where is +Osisi? Oh, its no use. They would not show up to present their cases about Gethsemane!

I never called anyone 'The Great Prophet'. The administrators of this site know how all that came about.

I have made my point though.

imhotep:

I never called anyone 'The Great Prophet'. The administrators of this site know how all that came about.

It is alright for Muslims to be derisive of other religions - and we have seen the effect of the fatwa on Nairaland.

olabowale:

The Wolves are out in force:

There's no need to address anyone as "wolves" I guess we can discuss sanely without the desperations that have been making the rounds.