bernie43

Zeda ask this:

1. "If you believe in a historical Jesus,

2. as described in the Bible, (then)

3. why are there no writings by him?"

Sorry me setting in a then there. Hope it doesn't change the meaning of it too much.

1. As have been pointed out. Very few active here believe in a historical Jesus.
There have been texts alleged to come from Richard Dawkins that he thought Jesus to be a good ethical leader of his group.

I don't trust this text to give the whole picture of Rich D. He could have said something less specific or in a context that this get wrong.

But I agree with you Zeda.

If somebody have the views your refer to, it should be a mystery to them that he left it to lesser minds to write his views down.

I think it all points to him being a total fiction based on OT. A Jewish Gnostic??? sect's self-interpretation of how they see the world through their take on OT.

This then get heavily edited to suite the Power Peopel who took over after Constantine setting up the Christian Orthodoxy. They edited it to be what we now see. Therefor no names have survived about who wrote it.

but apart from that.

why don't believers in Jesus care about such things.

cause they are not encouraged to really think for themselves. Dogma is given, to be assented to. It is more like a Guild in the Medival time. You learn fro mthe Master on how to make your Craft. And if your more gited than al lthe Masters around then you start your own school and be your own Master.

What one still could be curious on is the blindness to this assenting. Why do people accept to assent to dogma? Well maybe they rationalize that "It goes with the social territory. One deal with it or get out of it. Not much difference from Freudians assenting to dogmatic assertions within their views.

One answer is that they accept it all cause that is a small price to pay for the gift of being assured an eternal life and that feels sooo good.

To us outside of the "being caught up in the illusion of Faith" it seems utterly irrational. To them it is their new life and their new identity. The Truth.

Bernt.

Magus55

This issue has nothing to do with whether Socrates claimed to be the son of God or not.

As Bright stated:

A lot of atheists on this board don't even believe Jesus existed, let alone as the son of God. My point was, well if thats the case, neither did Socrates since Socrates wrote absolutely nothing himself.

And why would I find that to be odd that He did write anything? 1) He had more important things to do, 2) It would serve no purpose, 3) The compiled scripture was written after Jesus' death, and 4) God inspired the authors to write it, so why does He also need to physically pen it?

We are also assuming Jesus never did write anything. Maybe He did, but it never survived, and wasn't important enough to preserve.

Magus55

Perhaps you missed the Biblical passages where Jesus told the temple elders far more information than they knew. Jesus was not only literate, He was smarter as a kid than all the adults.

And again, how do you know Socrates was a learned scholar? By the same double standard logic atheists use to deny Jesus' existence, we can use to claim Socrates never existed. The only things ever written about him were by other people.

Toto

So what if Socrates didn't exist, and was just a literary creation of Plato? I can live with that, and so can everyone else.

graymouser

Socrates was a bad example. He is known to history; aside from the discussions in Plato (which may or may not be based upon actual discussions), Socrates was featured in plays such as The Clouds (a surviving work of Aristophanes where he is actually one of the main characters), and in other writing of the era. He is well-attested, which Jesus isn't; even if he didn't write a thing of his own, at least his existence is a confirmed fact. Jesus' isn't.

-Wayne

Hedshaker

Exactly my point. It makes no difference what Socrates did or didn't write. The writings stand on their own merit regardless.

With good reason.

Like I say, who gives a shit?

Has I have said, and which you choose to ignor, it's not that he didn't pen the bible himself but that that he didn't pen a single word, not a one! You say he had more important things to do and it would serve no purpose yet you have no evidence to his historical existance outside of the bible. And, if scripture was written after Jesus' death, how can you vouch for its authenticity? How can you possibly know the authors were inspired by a God of which you have no eveidence for?

You are just engaging in mental gymnatics to deny what is staring you in the face. It's myth. Get over it.

Orbit

Magus55

How do those examples attest to Socrates existence anymore than the Bible does Jesus? Plato's republic has Socrates as the main character too. And Jesus historical existence is pretty much considered a fact by most historians and theologians. I would say Jesus is considered more factual than Socrates.

BDS

The idea that Jesus "should" have written some Gospels is ridiculous. One might as well say, "If St. Paul was so smart, why didn't he write the Special Theory of Relativity." The entire idea that Jesus "should' have done something (presumably to satisfy the whim of some atheist writing 2000 years later) is mere silliness.

Without accusing anyone in this thread, an error I see on Internet Infidels fairly regularly is the assumption that myth somehow predates and is intellectually precedent to other forms of religious experience. But why should we assume this to be the case? Indeed, from our knowledge of the New Testament, theology anteceded myth (the Letters of Paul were written before the Gospels).

My guess: the EXPERIENCE of religion (enlightenment or whatever else you call it) is the intial impetus, not the facts of it. The experience comes from within. It cannot easily be expressed as myth, or history. Jesus and the Apostles EXPERIENCED something profound, or, at least, something which they felt was profound, and the Gospels and letters arose from that experience, and the attempt to give it to others.

bernie43

Jesus is alive to the believers now so they ahve no need for answers about why he didn't wrote something then.

What he tells them now is soo "alive" to them that this is the priority they do.

Who cares about Jesus then when he is here now they would say.

Could that be a reasonable answer.

Magus55

They don't stand on their own because we have no clue whether he actually existed for the same reason you claim we have no clue whether Jesus existed.


You're in the vast minority.



If Socrates wrote nothing himself, how do you know he existed, but you seem to know Jesus didn't exist because he didn't write anything ( that we are aware of ) himself. Its a double standard, not that I'd expect anything more from you.



For 1, despite atheist notion, the Bible is one source of evidence for Jesus' existence. The Bible is not a single book, and therefore isn't circular. And we do have evidence that Christians existed 1st Century, and without assuming Jesus existed as well, you are forced to claim that Jesus was invented in one generation, which isn't very probable.



Nothing is staring me in my face. You haven't proven its a myth, nor do I have any reason to accept your baseless, insulting, and obnoxious opinion. You get over, and welcome to ignore.