Roger Pearse

If you or I should make a similar claim now, would that guarantee the survival of our life-histories to the year 4,000 AD, despite the destruction of 99% of all our literature and records in a couple of hundred years time?

Please think these ones through. Jesus was a relatively marginal figure; and the degree to which material about similar figures survives is a good indicator.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy

I'm asking that question from the assumption that Jesus is god. If he's not god, then the question really is irrelevant. That's why you're having problems with the question. If Jesus was god, then his lack of literacy and/or writings due to the seriousness of his message is a pretty important question. If Jesus wasn't god and just some regular person, then the question loses its potency.

If you don't agree with the assumption that Jesus is god then this question really isn't for you.

bacht

The classic comparison is Socrates, who wrote nothing, yet whose existence isn't in doubt. Of course he only claimed to be following a god rather than being one.

Roger Pearse

I suspect that there is some set of unstated theological presumptions in your mind, namely that if Jesus is God then he must implement 20th century mass communication effects (knowledge that this statement is so presumably reaching us by divine revelation); he did not, therefore is not God. I believe that this might be called a "Straw man."

Such things should always be made explicit. They often involve terrible logic silently insinuated, which does no-one any good.

Do read the answers. God or not, he didn't change the way in which information is transmitted down the years to us, and not one of the Saints supposed otherwise.

In other words, I think you've found a mare's nest here. Sorry!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

It is explained here: 1. hoax, or fraud, 2. extraordinarily complicated situation.

Can we simplify this "mare's nest"?

As Roger pointed out, in an earlier post, the notion that the "burden of proof" rests with true believers, is contrary to the thrust of the forum which seeks to explore all options.

Here's the key to understanding the majority opinion:
What's needed, then, to address the questions you have raised, is less polemic, and more research. We (meaning, I) must learn Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Arabic, Coptic and Syriac, if we wish to truly comprehend the paucity of documents available. Only with improved language skills, can we hope to improve on the answers already suggested.

Roger Pearse

I think that whenever we have someone speaking on any subject, they need to put the case for their position on the subject. To assert something, and then demand others prove them wrong, is invariably a bit discreditable, IMHO, whatever the subject.

This seems a little pessimistic to me.

Well, it is also possible to gain a pretty good idea of what exists in (e.g.) Arabic Christian literature by simply skimming through Graf's Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, looking at the names of writers and the lists of works for each author.

Likewise we can get a fair idea of which Christian writers exist in the second century by reading Quasten's Patrology, again looking at the author names and see what exists of what they wrote.

Of course to work with anything like the complete corpus of some of these languages does indeed mean learning the language. But who has the time?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

I'm not having any problems with the question. You're supposed to say at this stage that you didn't ask the question you intended.

It's certainly not for you. It doesn't contain your presuppositions. Try asking the question that you intend next time.

:down:


spin

show_no_mercy

It's not a straw man, considering god did the same thing earlier with the 10 commandments.

Roger Pearse

If you should happen to murder someone, will you find sympathy if you defend your act by claiming "It's not murder because someone else did the same?"

Do think about the posts, hey? At the moment it looks as if you're just saying the first thing that comes into your head, you know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

It is a straw man. You can't expect god to provide evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.

The fact that the Gospels are filled with rewritten stories from the Old Testament, written by anonymous people , with no provenance or reliable sources - this is just to test your faith.

And if God is unable to prevent other religions springing up, claiming they have books from God, and then the believers killing each other over which books contain genuine messages from God, then this is not proof that there is no God.

It just means God does not conform to 21st century atheist ideas that the creator of the universe should not be a bungling nincompoop, who couldn't run a chip shop, let alone a universe.