Skeptical

By this criteria, none of the gospels would be useful since we cannot determine who wrote them. It would also exclude anything told to Paul by the disciples since it would be hearsay. That would leave us only with Paul's personal experience, which he doesn't relate any details of, only that Jesus "appeared" to him. If that's your position, then fine.

Skeptical

Your 6th point in your first quote seemed to assume a document by Jesus would be just like the gospels we have, only told from the first person POV. I agree that such a document would not be very useful, but that is only one form such a document could take.

Ok, perhaps saying _any_ questions is too optimistic, but believing he could certainly have left a document that would have cleared up _many_ questions is to me not at all "starkly optimistic".

So you don't find it the least bit strange that:

-the one and only "son of God" (whatever that means)
-who was to sent to earth for a brief period
-whose teachings and beliefs were vitally important
-whose teachings had to last for thousands of years because the whole worlds eternal salvation depends on it

Would _not_ leave any direct account of his teachings and would instead rely on the resources of his mostly illiterate followers and the vagaries of chance to have his message carried across the 2 millinium that have passed since his death?

If you don't find that illogical, I don't know what you _would_ find illogical.

Skeptical

I agree. It seems clear that Jesus thought "the end was near", it just seems hard to reconcile his being completely wrong about that with his being "the son of God".

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical: If you leave out the word "merely" you have my
position: a "Jesus Gospel" would have been (I assume unless someone can indicate otherwise) SOMETHING like the Gospels we have: a narrative of Jesus' ministry INCLUDING (but not limited to) teachings (Sermon on the Mount, parables etc.). Otherwise the "hypothetical" work is completely meaningless. If you have a 'Jesus epistle' in mind
then this too (its usefullness) would have to be
judged on ITS contents.
But in general I'm not in agreement that Jesus'
teachings as they have come down to us are SO
ambiguous/unclear.
Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical:[first quoting leonarde] Yes, none of the Gospels would hack it a
US court. But most people judge religious documents a little differently:

1)Is the given document an expression of a religious community?

2)Is it (the document)in substantially the same
form as it was written?

3) Is the document relatively free of later accretions?

4) Does the document tell us something about the
workings of God in this world? Or God's will?

The identity (ie name of the author) is secondary
in importance to my way of thinking. In the case
of the Gospels, any one of dozens of disciples of
Christ could have written them, or at least given
the oral testimony upon which the Gospel text is
based.
Therefore the works would indeed be useful.

Cheers!

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical: Nope.

Cheers!

Skeptical

So let me pose a specific hypothetical document by Jesus. Suppose for the sake of argument it contained:

1) A listing of his core teachings, similar but not necessarily limited to what is found in the gospel sermons and parables

2) A listing of his beliefs about his own "divinity" or lack thereof clarifying, for example, whether he thought he was equal to God or just "second in command" (thus eliminating the Marcion controvery)

3) A listing of his specific beliefs about his relationship to Judaism and whether he truly thought he was the messiah

4) A listing of his specific beliefs about his social world such as whether he thought women were equal socially to men, whether he thought slavery was evil, etc.

Assume it had only this content and nothing about specific actions of healings or raising of the dead as found in the gospels.

Now, granted this is a hypothetical, but are you saying that such a document or something very similar would _not_ have been useful?

It's not even necessarily that things he is supposed to have said are unclear, although some things are certainly not clear. The point is that there are many things Jesus could have written his views on that would have been useful. He could have eliminated the Marcion controvery. He could have stated unequivocally whether he thought he was the only way to God (yes, I know what the gospels _say_ he said). He could have stated his position on Slavery. There are thousands of things he could have written about. It seems clear to me that such information would have been not only very useful, but expected.

leonarde

You ORIGINAL contention was not that such a work
would be "useful" but that its mere absence itself
causes doubt, confusion, and (in some persons')
disbelief. Furthermore you claim that this (the
absence of this entirely theoretical work) is
"illogical". I wouldn't mind at all a Gospel according to Jesus. But its non-existence hardly is probative of the value of the Gospels that we DO have.....

Cheers!

Skeptical

Then why are you judging a hypothetical document written by Jesus and attested by Paul by this criteria?


Ok, so far no religious document ever written could be excluded.

If you mean the "original" form, how would you know if you don't have the original?

How would you know if you don't have early copies?

Any theistic document ever written meets this criteria

So, a document in the possession of the disciples they claim was written by Jesus, attested to by Paul in the earliest Christian tradition would not have been useful. However, documents of unknown source, written no earlier than 2 decades after Paul and most probably later, for which we have no fully extant copies older than the 4th century, those documents _are_ useful.

Quite a bit of a double standard you've set up there. In other words, you refuse to admit that such a document would be useful because admitting it would have been useful would indicate a problem that your not willing to deal with.

leonarde

You've done the old bait and switch by substituting the word "useful" for what we were
talking about earlier: whether the non-existence
of a Jesus work is puzzling, illogical, discrediting, and plain illogical. It ain't.

Cheers!