Radorth

Does this mean we can smoke together and be friends?


Indeed.


Of course if we are to believe Exodus, it didn't do Him a damn bit of good.

Besides, if he held one every 3 days, (in his mind) you won't be here for the one in 3032.

I know. He's a terrible God. I myself wish YHWH would do lot's more, but I suspect it is not as easy being God as we presume.

Radorth

(This software is not exactly the friendliest available)

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

CX

"Levity is the soul of whit" and is certainly welcome here as long as we stay on topic and the bulk of our posts contain some substance related to the discussion.

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical:
-------------------------------------------------
I'm not interested in other leaders, I'm interested in why Jesus would not have left his own writings and your evading the question.
-------------------------------------------------
I was responding to this remark made by you
on this very (2nd) page: ------------------------------------------------
Am I not supposed to respond to your comments??
Is this not a dialogue??
_________________________________________________
(Skeptical) Based on the claims of Jesus in the NT, I would expect a certain minimum level of evidence which it doesn't appear that we have. Saying Jesus compares well to other religious figures is, IMO, like being valedictorian of summer school.
--------------------------------------------------
I was responding to YOUR point about whether the
Gospel picture of Jesus AS THEY COME DOWN TO US
merely show a run-of-the-mill "religious leader"
of his time (1st Century) or someone who made an
extraordinary impression on at least a small group
of people, some of them like Paul, initially very
hostile. That is WITHOUT any additional NT work by
Jesus himself. I think I AM keeping to the point.
_________________________________________________
(Skeptical) The point is that IF Jesus was as important as the NT stories claim, it seem very difficult to reconcile that he would not have left his own writings.
-------------------------------------------------
I understand that that is YOUR belief; I just
don't share it.
_________________________________________________
quote:

It just seems to me that you are gilding the lilly: sure it would be nice to have 5 Gospels (of a canonical nature) instead of 4. But why stop there? Six would be better still. Seven would be better still etc.
-------------------------------------------------
(Skeptical)
Your avoiding the question. The question has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of
Gospels, it has to do with the _author_ of documents.
-------------------------------------------------
But how coud you 2000 years later determine that?
_________________________________________________

quote:
In the second paragraph of your OP you yourself seem to make assumptions, in the most general way, about the CONTENTS of such a (wholly theoretical)
NT work:
-------------------------------------------------

The point is that there are various forms such a work by Jesus could take. You are assuming it
_must_ look a certain way to have had value, all I am saying is that there are various assumptions one can make about what such a document could have taken that would have made it very valuable. I am not saying such documents _must_ have taken a certain form, I am saying they _could_ have taken a certain form. Some of your arguments rest on the idea that the documents would have been written in a certain way, and my argument back is that they could have been written in a different way. Assuming the content and then saying "well that content would not have been useful" is not a valid argument since there are various forms such
documents could have taken that would have made them very valuable. That was my point
-------------------------------------------------
Look: hypothetical questions can be a lot of fun.
But they are most useful as an intellectual enterprise when we:
1)limit ourselves to one possibility.
2)follow the inherent logic of that possibility
by being REALISTIC about it. That means that we
ruthlessly pursue the idea even when it turns out
not to be as much fun as we thought originally.

Since my very first post I have asked (in general)
HOW we would know that a "gospel according to Jesus" or an "epistle according to Jesus" or (fill
in blank with your hypothetical NT work "according
to Jesus") was indeed written by Jesus, and the very Jesus who was the subject of such a work?

This objection obtains no matter where your hypothetical musings take you. So far there has been no substantial response on this point and since you claim the "authorship" is what really
matters to you (ie not the number of NT works,
Gospels etc.) then you are no better off with a
"Jesus Gospel" of dubious authorship than you are
now....

Cheers!

Copernic

CX
Indeed you are correct. However, my intention was not to cast doubt on a historical Jesus. We've seen the discussion that... "sure, I'm sure there was some guy probably named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus about which this myth was written."

For the sake of argument I was assuming that the link was stronger between the real man and the Jesus the early Jewish Yeshua followers...well, followed, and about whom Paul had discourses with James and Peter (not necessarily whom he claims he had a vision of). That being said, my point that prior to his divination by Paul and the later Gospel writers, perhaps the reason he was not published is because he had nothing to say that was distinct from his peers at the time.

Again, you are right that not all Rabbis were Pharisees and I was stepping ahead to make the claim that Jesus was probably a Pharisaic Rabbi, but your assertion that "...he most certainly wasn't a Pharisee" may be a stretch as well.
Scholars are still debating this as I understand it.

Because the Gospels became more anti-Pharisaic as they were written (the author/editor of Mark being most accomidating to the Jesus and the Pharisee account), this lends thought that the writings of the Gospels were more propagandist than factual.

Many jews throughout the Diaspora still considered themselves Pharisees as had Paul/Saul. Yet neither Paul/Saul or Jesus were from the hub of Pharasaism, Jerusalem. So it is not unreasable to assume that they could follow the basic teachings and philosophy yet still be strongly influenced by their local elements to give us an off-brand Pharisee...ism (is that a word?)

Point being, is that your "minor quibble" made me think and retract the Jesus was a "Pharisaic rabbi" remark but I would argue that the nature and origins of his philosophy are still being debated and he could certainly have been a Pharisee...although not necessarily.

Regards
J

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ] edited to remove unsubstantiated claim

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ]</p>

Tristan Scott

I think it is entirely possible that Jesus, or at least the person whom the Jesus figure of the NT is representing did write something. As has been suggested by Clarice and others these writings may have been lost. It is not like Jesus would write something and they would make a million copies of it.

The Jesus figure was a preacher, and it would be more likely that he would be followed by an oral tradition rather than a written one especially during his ministry. Jesus may not have been illiterate, but it is very probable that most of his Gallilean followers were.

It is also possible that Jesus did write, or maybe had some influence in the writing of a book of his sayings. I refer to the so-called Q gospel that many modern scholars believe was, along with the Gospel of Mark used to write Matthew and Luke.

Q research is very fascinating, but if true paints a much different picture of the Jesus figure. It is also been the catalyst for a renewed study of the area of Gallilee which is also causing many opinions about that area to change as well.

So anyway I think it is possible that the Jesus figure wrote something, and it is also possible that it may be found, and that it may have been under our noses all along. The danger to the Christian community is that they may discover a Jesus much different than the one they thought they had.

Skeptical

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that that was what you were responding to.


Ok, for the purposes of argument I grant that Jesus compares favorably to others in his era

Which is exactly my question. What rational reason would a man who is supposed to be the most important person who ever existed have for _not_ leaving his own writings. So far I have not seen a good reason offered.

I answered this already. I said:

"Strictly speaking we couldn't have absolute proof. However, if we had a document that:

1) Was claimed by Paul to have been in the possession of the disciples in Jeruselem and to have been written by Jesus
2) Was circulated among the early churches in the 1st century

This would be evidence that could not be simply dismissed and we would have at least as good a reason to believe it was written by Jesus as we would to believe that the letters of Paul are written by Paul."

I find it curious that a theist would argue that "well, we wouldn't know it was from Jesus", while you apparently put faith in documents that are almost certainly written by people who didn't even _know_ Jesus. That seems ironic to me.


But my post was not about the _content_ of a hypothetical gospel written by Jesus. My post was why wouldn't the man have written anything given the supposed accounts of him in the NT. I was addressing the singular point you raised where you basically assumed a certain content and said that based on that content, the document wouldn't have been worth much. I am saying that you cannot assume the content, say that content wouldn't have been worth much and then say this is a legitimate reason why Jesus wouldn't have written anything.

The bottom line is that there are lots of things Jesus could have written about that would have been very valuable, so your premise that a gospel by Jesus would not have been valuable is not a legitimate argument to explain why Jesus didn't write anything.

I answered this already, see above. Bottom line, we could have much better evidence of authorship than we have for the current NT documents.

In any case, this does not answer the question why we don't even have a document to argue about the authorship. The man didn't leave any writings and my question is why not. I don't think saying we couldn't know absolutely it was from Jesus is a legitimate argument as to why we don't even have the documents to argue about.

Vanderzyden

Hi Skeptical,

I followed you over here, so that I may compare this dialogue with the position you take in the "non-natural knowledge" thread over in E/C.

Yes, your question is interesting, but it seems that you have already answered the question for yourself and remain inflexible(as in the other thread). But I will try to provide you with an answer. As you review my presentation below, please realize that I am not "preaching" or "evangelizing", but merely attempting to provide a direct and substantial answer to your question.

Your question:

It would be good to know what you mean by "illogical". On what basis is the absence of his own writings not logical? He is without question the most unique person ever, and has made a mark on this world like no one else. That he has done so without writing one word is yet one more amazing thing about him.

Let me suggest that perhaps the general answer to your question is: The work that he came to do was far more important than putting his words to paper.

We read in the NT that he knew his work would only last a short time--three years. He was incredibly busy.

Yes, we may compare Jesus with Socrates in many ways, including what you have observed: neither wrote anything down. Now, you may be unfamiliar with the writings of Plato, which contain the teachings of Socrates. Let me ask you: What degree of authenticity would you assign to the account of these teachings, as they are relayed by Plato? (You will note that this line of inquiry parallels the "Bible as history" questions I have been asking you in the other thread.)

Other considerations:

-- Do presidents write things down while they are working? I would suspect it is because the public life is far too busy.
-- It's my understanding that we don't have the writings of Alexander, Hannibal, or Julius Caesar. Isn't it likely that an accurate portrayal of their lives may be taken from their historians?

It would appear, Skeptical, that you are presuming that Jesus' primary mission was to provide yet another list of guidelines. But that is not what we read in the NT. His teaching was about the kingdom of God, not how to manage sins in a better way. To any casual reader of the entire NT, any account of Jesus taking time to write might be viewed as a waste of his ability. Fully aware of his ability, he knew that his public life would be so amazing that he would not have time, but he also probably knew he would be written about by others eventually if only for the sheer virtue of the audacity of his actions and the uniqueness of his life.


Here are some statements concerning Jesus' purpose:

You seem to indicate that you have read the gospel accounts well enough to know that he knew beforehand that he would die and be raised up in three days. Further reading gives clear indication that these events would clearly demonstrate his purpose. He indicates that purpose to be the salvation of men. In Jesus of Nazareth, God comes near to men, relating directly with them and clarifying what it really means to be human. But this will not be done by writing instruction manuals. No, it was done by living it. He lived what he knew to be true. Given the nature of these events, writing about them beforehand would be nonsense. For him to write about these events in the forty days following his resurrection would be absurdly incidental. The tremendous impact upon his followers would prompt them to write about it later.

Jesus also made bold claims such as: having the authority to forgive sins, existing before Abraham, to be truth and life personified, to have special direct access to God, to have direct control over demonic influence, to know what the devil himself desired, to be able to know the thoughts of other people, and to be the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of all mankind. But let's look at something in particular. Presume, for the moment, that Jesus did have miraculous restorative power. He would necessarily know of his unique miraculous abilities. He spoke of the "Law and the Prophets", which contained a prominent theme: creation had been corrupted by the rebellion of man. Therefore, Jesus was here to restore men to what they had originally been created to be. He performed signs to indicate that he had sufficient power to justify the other claims he was making. He spent his time doing his critically important work, not writing.

If indeed he did these things, writing them down would not convey the force. Rather, those who witnessed these acts would write them down (if they felt the impact was great enough).

Let me use a practical analogy: Which would be more endearing, Skeptical, to your loved ones when you die: the amazing, notable things you did or the writings that you left them? In reading your literature, the impact would not be the printed words, but the recollection of you! Of those who would later say "Skeptical had such an impact on my life!", they wouldn't be referring to your writings. (Would they call you "Skeptical"? ) Now, let's say you were a miracle worker. Would you spend your time writing, or healing? Certainly, you'd have to consider what would be the best use of your time, especially if you knew that there was an overriding purpose in your life.

There is another reason that Jesus' writing would be useless or problematic. First, let me use an illustration. Consider a trial, where the accused is brought before the judge and jury. Will he likely stand on his own testimony? No. Attorneys advise their clients not to defend themselves, but instead let the facts speak for them. If they are in the right, the attorney and favorable witnesses will make the case on behalf of the defendant. Finally, an impartial judge will accept their testimony.

Now, imagine if Jesus had written his own words and no one else wrote anything about him. Would this be nearly as persuasive as the witness testimony that we see throughout the NT? Hardly. In fact, those who were hostile to Jesus made it clear that his own words wouldn't be sufficient:

Do you see how they reject him, despite his previous justifications? It is because they already preconceived what a Messiah would be. Jesus is also saying here that the work of God would be his witness. That would include his resurrection, and the lives that would be transformed as a result. He also indicates that some people will not take him for who he demonstrates himself to be, but what they want him to be: a god who meets their every whim.

Imagine the alternative scenario: that Jesus did write something, and his followers wrote similar things. Well, then there would be a different way to dismiss him: "You know, Paul simply copied what Jesus wrote, and therefore we only need refer to Jesus writings. But then, Jesus is his own witness, and therefore his testimony--especially concerning his divinity--is unacceptable."

I will reiterate what someone else has written in this thread: People who do not believe on the testimony of the NT as it stands now would not believe it if it contained the actual writings of Jesus. It is clear that those who saw the wonder of his amazing life with their own eyes would not believe:

I close with a thought: Enough has been written about him, before and after he came. Why should you require that the Son of Man, who has no equal, should take time to write any more?


Vanderzyden

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Richiyaado

Saying "most unique" is redundant.

Each human being is unique, no one "more" than any other.

Radorth

Actually just a 70's first century Gospel copy would make 80% of skeptics here look like fools. Who knows? A few might get saved.

Or maybe they'd argue somebody just found some old 1st century papyrus and used it to fool people. Er, never mind.

Radorth

leonarde

Skeptical,
Hi. I don't think we'll come to any agreement but
what the heck. A few points:

1)you (rightly) say that at times I have made
certain assumptions about the CONTENTS of the hypothetical work. But you did that too on the
first page saying that the Jesus book would
.

2)Furthermore in explaining how we would verify
authorship YOU in effect change the CONTENTS of
at least one book by Paul: whichever one is used
to verify the existence of the "Jesus writing".
This is an inherent addition to whichever book of
Paul you choose to put it in.

3)I don't exactly understand WHY you feel that Paul's (entirely hypothetical) endorsement of a(n
entirely hypothetical)"book according the Jesus"
would be any more trustworthy than his account of
his conversion on the road to Damascus or his
preachings based on what the apostles and other
disciples taught him. If Paul is reliable in the
former he should be ALL THE MORE reliable in the
latter since the former just amounts to a document
Paul would have READ whereas the latter refers to
Paul's own personal encounter with the risen Jesus
and his (Paul's) interactions with the disciples.

Cheers!