Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Skeptical · 09-09-2002, 01:41 PM

The title pretty much says it all. I have asked myself this question and the only plausible answer I can see is that he was just like many other philosophers/religious figures in ancient times that didn't leave their own writings. (Buddha, Socrates, etc.)

However, IF Jesus really was of divine origin and, in fact, the _only_ person who ever lived who was of divine origin, why wouldn't he have left his own writings? Especially given the controvery over the veracity of the NT writings as we have them and the amount of time between his death and the present, it seems completely illogical that he would not have left writings from his own hand to clear up any questions about what he may or may not have said.

I'm asking because I honestly cannot think of a single good reason for his not to have left his own writings given the picture of him as presented in the NT. (please, let's not have any "because he didn't exist" answers, I'm assuming for the sake of argument he did exist)

Amen-Moses · 09-09-2002, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical:
I'm asking because I honestly cannot think of a single good reason for his not to have left his own writings given the picture of him as presented in the NT.

Because he was illiterate?

Maybe that is the whole problem with the world, God can't read so he doesn't have a clue what we are all about, this scares him.

Amen-Moses

Peter Kirby · 09-09-2002, 02:01 PM

OK, for the sake of the argument, may I ask, what does it mean to say that a person is "divine"? This seems relevant, since you have postulated for the discussion not only that Jesus existed but that he had divine origins.

best,
Peter Kirby

Skeptical · 09-09-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
<strong>OK, for the sake of the argument, may I ask, what does it mean to say that a person is "divine"? This seems relevant, since you have postulated for the discussion not only that Jesus existed but that he had divine origins.

best,
Peter Kirby</strong>

Good question. I don't know exactly what that means, any more than I understand what "son of God" means. I've just seen him referred to this way by Christians. Perhaps it would be better if I rephrased it and said he is reputed to have been the only person who has ever lived who could serve as an intermediate between God and man? Or maybe just say he is reputed to have been the most important person who ever lived? I'm open to suggestions.

Kosh · 09-09-2002, 02:18 PM

Maybe he used a windows PC, and it kept crashing before he could hit "save"...

Secular Pinoy · 09-09-2002, 03:27 PM

Impossible! Everyone knows in his heart that "Jesus Saves!"

motorhead · 09-09-2002, 03:35 PM

The reason he left no writings is because he didn't think it was necessary. He was an apocalyptic prophet who preached the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom. He probably thought there was no point in writing his teachings down because God's Kingdom was coming very soon and everything was about to change.

Skeptical · 09-09-2002, 07:14 PM

No theists want to tackle this question?

leonarde · 09-09-2002, 08:07 PM

My (theistic) ruminations on the topic:

1)though the function of writing was a very important one in ancient times when a small percentage of the population was literate, these
writers (frequently they were a priest class)were
usually working for someone (the monarch).
In the religious scheme of things the monarch is
Jesus/God. Others write what He tells(inspires)
them to.

2)a Gospel written by the pre-Crucifixion Jesus
would not have included the Crucifixion and Resurrection (ie the most important events of the
NT by far).

3)had Jesus written anything, there would be no
way many centuries later to verify that HE was
indeed the author: the given work would be in the
same gloom of doubt by disbelievers as Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John are today.

4)since His human/divine Presence was the important thing for his earthly followers, his
teachings, even in written form, would have been
terribly overshadowed. It was only when He left the earth bodily that written works began to be
important. Yet even THIS took decades: as long as
the LIVING witnesses to Jesus' life were around,
written documents were an afterthought.

5)since ancient parchments were not made to last
centuries, a permanent record of his life (even
if written by Him) would depend on diligent copying of same. This dependence on a FUTURE class
scribes meant that there was for His purposes little difference who wrote the Gospels: if people
wouldn't trust the copiers/translators (almost all
of whom were faceless monks, at least during the
Middle Ages) then they probably wouldn't trust that a Jesus-written Gospel was indeed Jesus-written.

6)the Gospels contain (and this is most explicit
in John) an element of WITNESS: hey, I saw this
guy raise Lazarus with my own eyes! If Jesus had
written a Gospel it would have been one guy "witnessing" to himself. Not so persuasive; what if he really WERE loco?

Cheers!

CX · 09-10-2002, 06:02 AM

Because he was an illiterate peasant.

09-09-2002, 01:41 PM	#1
Skeptical Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 472	Why wouldn't Jesus have written anything? The title pretty much says it all. I have asked myself this question and the only plausible answer I can see is that he was just like many other philosophers/religious figures in ancient times that didn't leave their own writings. (Buddha, Socrates, etc.) However, IF Jesus really was of divine origin and, in fact, the _only_ person who ever lived who was of divine origin, why wouldn't he have left his own writings? Especially given the controvery over the veracity of the NT writings as we have them and the amount of time between his death and the present, it seems completely illogical that he would not have left writings from his own hand to clear up any questions about what he may or may not have said. I'm asking because I honestly cannot think of a single good reason for his not to have left his own writings given the picture of him as presented in the NT. (please, let's not have any "because he didn't exist" answers, I'm assuming for the sake of argument he did exist)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2002, 02:01 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	OK, for the sake of the argument, may I ask, what does it mean to say that a person is "divine"? This seems relevant, since you have postulated for the discussion not only that Jesus existed but that he had divine origins. best, Peter Kirby

09-09-2002, 02:18 PM	#5
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Maybe he used a windows PC, and it kept crashing before he could hit "save"...

09-09-2002, 03:27 PM	#6
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Impossible! Everyone knows in his heart that "Jesus Saves!"

09-09-2002, 03:35 PM	#7
motorhead Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Land of Make Believe Posts: 781	The reason he left no writings is because he didn't think it was necessary. He was an apocalyptic prophet who preached the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom. He probably thought there was no point in writing his teachings down because God's Kingdom was coming very soon and everything was about to change.

09-09-2002, 07:14 PM	#8
Skeptical Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 472	No theists want to tackle this question?

09-09-2002, 08:07 PM	#9
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	My (theistic) ruminations on the topic: 1)though the function of writing was a very important one in ancient times when a small percentage of the population was literate, these writers (frequently they were a priest class)were usually working for someone (the monarch). In the religious scheme of things the monarch is Jesus/God. Others write what He tells(inspires) them to. 2)a Gospel written by the pre-Crucifixion Jesus would not have included the Crucifixion and Resurrection (ie the most important events of the NT by far). 3)had Jesus written anything, there would be no way many centuries later to verify that HE was indeed the author: the given work would be in the same gloom of doubt by disbelievers as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are today. 4)since His human/divine Presence was the important thing for his earthly followers, his teachings, even in written form, would have been terribly overshadowed. It was only when He left the earth bodily that written works began to be important. Yet even THIS took decades: as long as the LIVING witnesses to Jesus' life were around, written documents were an afterthought. 5)since ancient parchments were not made to last centuries, a permanent record of his life (even if written by Him) would depend on diligent copying of same. This dependence on a FUTURE class scribes meant that there was for His purposes little difference who wrote the Gospels: if people wouldn't trust the copiers/translators (almost all of whom were faceless monks, at least during the Middle Ages) then they probably wouldn't trust that a Jesus-written Gospel was indeed Jesus-written. 6)the Gospels contain (and this is most explicit in John) an element of WITNESS: hey, I saw this guy raise Lazarus with my own eyes! If Jesus had written a Gospel it would have been one guy "witnessing" to himself. Not so persuasive; what if he really WERE loco? Cheers!

09-10-2002, 06:02 AM	#10
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Because he was an illiterate peasant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.