Bright Life

As you may have noticed, there are very few theists who post here. Of those few, some are christian. Of those christians, only a few are biblical literalists. If you do indeed want a serious answer to this question, you would probably be better off asking those who believe its underlying premise. The best answers you'll probably get here are that he didn't write anything, because he didn't exist.

I'm not telling you to leave, by any means. But be aware, you are asking questions about a figure most of us here do not believe existed (at least not in the way the bible portrays him).

Welcome,

BL

Barefoot Bree

Or you could try asking your question again up in the Biblical Criticism and History forum. You might get more serious thoughtful answers up there.











And then again, maybe not.

WilliamB

Hi Zeda,

I think that's an excellent question. I always wondered why Socrates never wrote anything down either. I think it's presumed that Socrates was illiterate, as I suspect Jesus may have been also, if he really lived; but he was apparently very learned.

If Jesus really was what he claimed to be then that raises even more problems, at least for me. Why leave men, who we know are fallible, to write down the important stuff? Why have several gospels, instead of one? If I were separated from my sons for some reason, and had to communicate something in writing which I knew was a matter of life and death to them, I would certainly write the message myself, and not trust any other hand to say what I wanted to say.

At the same time it all supports the whole "mysterious ways" thing, and the "faith" thing. God doesn't want to make it easy for us, even though our eternal destiny seems to depend on how well we understand his "message".
Intellectuals have been quibbling for two millenia over these texts, thousands of people have died as a result of the variety of interpretations they lend themselves to, and yet we are compelled by serious people even today to commit our very lives to them.

Personally, I think the OT makes God look bad, and the NT tries hard to make him look better, and almost succeeded; but I seriously doubt that either of them have any significant acquaintance with a Supreme Being.

BuffaloBill

I am reminded of Robert Ingersoll's comments about Jesus' illiteracy. Ingersoll related the story about Jesus scribbling in the sand while the prostitute was about to be stoned--it was the extent of his writing.

I'm surprised some enterprising soul hasn't uncovered that icon, miraculously preserved, and made it a must-visit site.

Biff the unclean

No, I don't believe that Jesus is based on anyone historic. The Biblical Jesus is cobbled together from parts of the stories of Dionysus, Mithra and Apollonius of Tyana. But there is no one "on the ground' that these stories are hung on.
King Arthur can be traced to a Celtic/Roman commander who had Welsh Druidic religious stories attached to him. Even Robin Hood was a real criminal who had magical tales of Hern and the goddess Brig attached to him.
But as hard as anyone looks there is no historic figure who might have been Jesus, only the magical tales. And Christians have looked long and hard for him, gave it the old (Bible) college try. They have even found minor characters in the story like Simon the Magician and Jesus Barabus were there. But not the slightest suggestion of a physical Jesus, by that or any other name.
Not that it matters much, it just means that instead of a legend Jesus is a myth...such a fine distinction that it's hardly worth the effort to make it.

JohNeo

This is a personal observation, so take it for what it's worth.

I certainly think that Jesus' presumed illiteracy calls into question his divine authority. Legend has it that Moses at least had tablets prepared for him by God with the 10 commandments--a lot of good that did, since he smashed them--and that the Qu'ran was written by Allah through the hand of Muhammed. But the Gospels...twisted, tangled, loosely based on OT prophesies at best. Not the kind of work one would expect from the master of the universe.

JohNeo

Magus55

I take your opinion to mean that you don't believe Socrates existed either?

Magus55

I guess the question is, why would He need to, and to what dilemma would it solve? Despite the disagreement among atheists here, the Bible is written by lots of different people, over a long time period, yet the authors agree and back each other up. Each of the authors seem to tell a different piece of the puzzle, and when you combine them you see the whole puzzle. If Jesus wrote the entire Bible, it won't solve any of the problems of whether He existed or not (unless you can prove He wrote it), nor will it add any validity to what skeptics already dismiss.

Also keep in mind, the final scripture wasn't written until after Jesus died (meaning I'm sure they jotted down what He said while He was alive, but it wasn't officially penned until later.)

And why does Him not writing anything down mean He never existed? Socrates never wrote anything on His own, yet most people believe He existed.

Hedshaker

Socrates wasn't claiming to be the son of God now was he?

It's not why Jesus, if he existed, didn't write the bible, but that said character never wrote a single word, not a one. That's what thinking people find strange.

Not a single word penned by the son of god and you don't find that even the remotest bit rum?

You should.

Orbit

Aaron Thrash

I don't believe that anything in the bible was written by Jesus, because he was illiterate. I also believe that most of the disciples, possibly with the exeption of Judas, were also illiterate. Most of what was written was either dictated or recollections of what took place.

Socrates, on the other hand was a learned scholar, not only of Philosophy. Socrates never claimed to be the son of god. This argument doesn't seem to be valid.

-A