Skeptical

I will consider logical alternatives if they are presented. To be sure, I have views on the question based on research and thinking about questions such as these, but I am willing to consider meaningful responses.

If someone can give me even a mildly convincing argument why someone whose teachings and beliefs are said to be the most important information ever to exist would not leave their own account of this information, I'm perfectly willing to say, ok, that makes sense. For example, some have posited that they thought Jesus probably did leave writings. It seems initially hard to believe that such writings would not have been preserved, but if someone could posit some reasons why such writings might not have been preserved, I'll consider those arguments.

Ok, if it is logical, present your argument, let's not get caught up in a semantical boondoggle about how I do or do not define logical. If there are reasons that make sense to you, state what you think they are.

Not that it's relevant, but hearsay is rarely admitted. Special circumstances are required, and 3rd hand testimony (Bob told me that Sue told him that...) I can't imagine ever being admitted. IANAL, but I do watch enough "law and order" to know that one of the most forceful and frequent objections to a witness is "that's hearsay your honor".

Again, this is not relevant. The question is not what we have, it's what we don't have and why that is my question. However, the sum total of the early canonical manuscripts are:

8 (perhaps 7?) letters of Paul - 50-60 CE
Mark - 70-80 CE
Mat - 80-100 CE
Luke - 80-130 CE
John - 90-120 CE

By my count, that's 12 canonical writings that can arguably be said to be 1st century. Anything later than 1st century I wouldn't consider "early" and I don't know that I would consider 12 to be "many".

In general, I accept that there will tend to be a lot of errors in many things people report about events that happen to them, although the macro events are usually fairly accurate in common, everyday circumstances. So to answer, I would probably accept that someone died, the exact details I would verify.

Now, the catch is that people are notoriously bad reporters of events under certain circumstances, particularly during times of high emotion. How this is salient to this dicussion is that it is a known fact of human psychology that during times of high emotion, especially religious or occult events, people tend to see things that don't correspond to reality. People believe they see images of people, places and things that aren't there. There are many, many cases of this reported throughout history. Here's a sample of the flavor of this phenoemena from events in the mid 1970's:

"Agehananda Bharati, an Austrian-Hindu mystic, tells of his once hearing about an Indian swami who allegedly levitated at night on a regular basis. He decided to see it for himself. He and some 50 other people sat throught a good part of the night waiting for the swamit to levitate, but nothing happened, and he fell asleep. In the morning, otghers who Bharati had noticed had also fallen asleep, asked him how he had liked the swami's levitation this time. The swami was said to have levitated at least 4 yards above the ground from sunset to sunrise. Because Bharati had not seen him do it, he was somewhat upset.

It was not until some time later that he realized that statements about levitation and other demonstrations of unusual powers are not statements of fact, but statements made by adherents and believers from within the swami's in-group as part of their confession of their belief in him. Levitation, omniscience, and magic powers are ascribed by the devotees to the saint. Empirical demonstrations have no place in this scheme of things, and objections from someone who fails to see the man rise 4 feet in the air are met by the irrefutable argument that the observer is not pure enough, spiritually advanced enough, or that he is simply preventing himself from witnessing the marvels by his disbelief.

When Bharati met the same swami a year later, under different circumstances, and was able to talk to him alone, the swami stated quite seriously that he neither levitated nor performed any of the other feats ascribed to him: "it is the bhaktas (devotees) who say these things", he said." (Anomalistic Psychology: A study of magical thinking by Zusne and Jones, pgs 192-193)

Notice the reasons given by the adherents to explain the lack of empirical evidence, you may even find such reasons have merit, or you may dismiss these people out of hand. Either way, my point was only to give a flavor of the sorts of things people believe they see under certain circumstances that don't correspond to what is empirically observed. There are many other examples in the cited work, which I highly recommend.

Now, if my wife came to me and said there was an alien or a werewolf in our backyard, I'd probably think she was wrong and investigate it for myself. The more a claim deviates from our known empirical knowledge, the more skeptical one needs to be and the more evidence should be required.

It's not a black and white issue, it's a continuum. On one end are claims so mundane that to not believe them is silly, such as saying that a squirrel just ran across my backyard. On the other hand are claims so incredible that they absolutely require corroborating evidence, such as saying a T-rex is in my backyard terrorizing my dog. Religious claims of the supernatural definitely tend to fall closer to the latter than the former.

The question is not that Jesus should meet my expectations. The question is why would Jesus not leave his own writings. Are you saying that he wouldn't leave his own writings just because that's the sort of thing people would expect? If your saying you wouldn't expect him to leave writings, why not?


I should have clarified myself. My point was that when discussing an issue that seems to raise a question about Jesus and is clearly _not_ answered in the NT, quoting from the bible is not relevant, it's just an appeal to authority. Bible verses are only relevant when one is discussing an issue about particular verses or discussing a particular issue that is addressed specifically in the bible.

See above

This argument basically amounts to saying Jesus wouldn't leave writings because people would expect him to. I don't really find this persuasive. With so much riding on getting Jesus' thoughts and beliefs correct, it seems a little strange to suggest that it is exactly _because_ so much was riding on it that he _didn't_ leave any writings, which is what it seems to me you are suggesting.

I don't think I "insisted", I believe I said it seems only logical that he would leave his own writings considering:

1) His thoughts and beliefs are said to have been so important
2) 2,000 years have passed since he was on earth
3) Peoples entire salvation is said to depend on believing what he said
4) Most of the information we do have about him is contained in only a few documents of which we have no extant copies dating earlier than the 4th century (the 4 canonical gospels)

I didn't list these specifics in my OP, because I thought the reasons for my question were obvious.

Meaning what? That Jesus should talk to each person individually "in their head"? What specifically does this mean and what does accomplishing something "personally" have to do with not leaving his own writings? If your saying that such writings wouldn't be personal or important, this exact argument could be made about all of the gospels.

I said I was willing to consider reasons why Jesus would not have left his own writings, but basically all you have said in this post is that Jesus shouldn't have to meet my expectations, which I don't really consider to be an argument so much as an evasion of the question.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

leonarde

Skeptical posted: But then you end this post the way you did a previous one: "your position is clear". That phrase alone makes it seem that what PRECEDED the
phrase was my position rather than your continual
mangling of my position.

On page one you denied to ANOTHER poster that you
were raising arguments, let alone being argumentative. I took that (on pages 1 and 2) at
face value: I really thought you were interested
in a simple exchange of views. Clues that you have
gotten argumentative:

1)repeatedly (now) misrepresenting me via the phrase "your position is clear" after you've thoroughly given a distorted version of my views.

2)writing "Your position is clear, it's just ridiculous. " as you did to end your last post to
me.

I don't agree with much you've said here but I would never claim that your position (EVEN if I misaprehended it) was "ridiculous". I'll leave that to a serious philosopher like you.

Cheers!

Skeptical

I said my _first_ post was not an argument, but a question because the poster claimed my OP was an argument when it clearly wasn't. Once people posited reasons they thought Jesus might not have written anything, a discussion/debate has ensued. That's typically the way these things go.

If I have distored your views, perhaps it's because you have refused to answer simple yes or no questions that would have clarified them. I don't expect you to answer clearly, but I'll ask anyway:

Do you think that a document written by Jesus would have been of no more "use", "worth", or whatever term you want to use than other early christian documents? A simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient.

I consider an argument that a document written by Jesus himself would be of no more utility than any other early christian document to be ridiculous. If that is not your position, then you should clarify because that is certainly what you implied by your earlier responses.

Your claim as I understand it _is_ ridiculous. A document written by Jesus would clearly have been more important than other early documents written by anyone else. If this is your claim I stand by my statement.

leonarde

Skeptical,
Merely SAYING that something is a "yes or no question" does not make it so: ALL of your queries
in this thread have centered on a COMPLETELY (as
far as we know) non-existent book that you would
hypothetically put in your (hypothetical) new version of the New Testament.
In the course of these 4 pages YOU have, for one
reason or another changed, added or embellished
on your original 1 point hypothetical:

1) When I asked how we WOULD know that Jesus had
indeed written it, YOU hypothesized out of the
blue a (again hypothetical) New Testament reference to it by Saint Paul. Logically this
assumes 3 sub-hypothoses:
a)Saint Paul read the work (the Jesus book).
b)Paul WROTE about the work.
c)Paul's written report made it into the NT either
as part of an existing work or in some OTHER hypothetical NT work.

2)I tried to point out that Paul could report on
the EXISTENCE of such a work in the mid-1st Century but couldn't PERSONALLY vouch for the author (unless one makes up even MORE hypothetical
assumptions which are not readily to hand).

3) I pointed out (again in my very first post on
page 1) that a pre-Crucifixion Jesus could not write about, as a fait accompli, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection (ie the two most important events in Christianity). For THAT REASON ALONE the 4 Gospels we have are more important than this hypothetical Jesus-written one WOULD be.

4)On page 4 you shifted gears somewhat and gave
a LOT of HYPOTHETICAL details about your hypothetical book in what you later called a "herculean" effort to convince me of the "usefulness" of the hypothesized work.

5)Again and for the last time, the exact value of the hypothesized work depends on the details therein but NONE would be as important as the historical record that most Christians believe is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Therefore it would be of only secondary importance (like the
Epistles).

Sorry!

Cheers!

Skeptical

Wow, more evasions to a simple question. I'm shocked.

Yes, it's called a discussion. Topics typically change as you go along and have a back and forth exchange.

Yes, and your point is? You posed a legitimate problem, I hypothesized reasonable solutions for how we might have confidence in the authorship of a work said to be authored by Jesus. What is your issue with this? I don't think any part of my hypothesis is unbelievable or extraordinary.

Yes, and I answered you that he would certainly have gotten such a document from the disciples in Jeruselem, making its authorship at least as trustworthy as anything else he received from them. Perhaps you didn't read my response?

In any case, my answer was in response to one of your statements that we wouldn't know the author of a supposed document from Jesus, so that is why Jesus wouldn't have written anything. My hypothesis was intended to show that there are perfectly reasonable ways in which we could have some degree of confidence of authorship. There's nothing strange or unusual about this sort of debate/discussion, so I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

Even if I grant you this, it doesn't explain why Jesus wouldn't have written anything. As I stated earlier, there are many topics Jesus could have written about that would have greatly complemented the gospels. You seem to think that I am arguing that we should have a document written by Jesus _instead_ of the gospels, which I'm not, or that the only content that would have been worth Jesus writing about would have been similar to the gospels, which I disagree with and have clearly stated my reasons why.

Yes, again it's called a discussion, sometimes ideas are offered to expand or assist in explaining an earlier topic.

I disagree, but even granting you this point, it doesn't explain why Jesus would not have left his own writings. The gospels had not yet been written, he didn't know what would be written about him and it would certainly have been expected that he would want to leave a clear picture of his thoughts and beliefs if he believed he was as important as the gospels portray him.

Also, even setting aside the content, the mere fact alone of the existence of a document with very early attestation to Jesus would all but eliminate Jesus Mythers, so it would have had some value (from a Christian perspective) irrespective of its content.

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical: [leonarde] No. The TOPIC is the same as in the OP. What has
changed in the course of the 4 pages is that you
have gone from a TRULY simple formulation in the
OP to a multi-hypothesesed version early on page
4, a version of multiple parts, to wit: Only the most tendentious of arguers would contend
that this is merely a "simple yes or no question".
Furthermore your question has embedded in it the
concept that I denied earlier (ie in the first 3
pages) that the hypothesized work would have ANY
value. That ain't so. If it IS so, then just quote
me by reposting my words to that effect. You would
rather just repeat over and over that I'm "evading" your "simple" question.
Nonsense. Both on the "evasion" and on the simplicity of the question.

s0uljah

Hi!

As a Catholic, I believe that Jesus did not write anything, nor did he command anyone else to write anything. What He did do, was set up His Church and command it to teach.

Catholics believe in Apostolic Tradition, as well as Sacred Scripture, although the Bible is not the sole authority.

Also, a tangent, is that Catholics (original Christians) don't interpret the Bible for ourselves, since it is confusing and requires a lot of background knowledge and divine guidance to really understand.

Peace!

Skeptical

Leonarde, what part of "hypothetical" and "for the sake of argument" aren't clear? You said:

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

So, in response to this I posited some things that a hypothetical work by Jesus might contain other than a gospel like narrative and said:

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

I assumed that by "narrative" you meant it would have to contain some specifics regarding the story of Jesus as told in the gospels. I assumed by "meaningless" you meant essentially "useless". Your comments were the source of both my hypothetical ideas about content and the question of whether such a document would have been useful.

In any case, the point is quite simply that I posited some hypothetical content to directly address a point you had made. To me, this is what a discussion is. If all we're going to do is posit something and not get feedback and back and forth discussion, what's the point of posting in the first place?

The simple question I was referring to was:

Simple question, do you now grant that such a document would have been useful, yes or no.

That is a simple question that can be answered with a yes or no. You either do think a document written by Jesus having the qualities I posited would have been useful or you don't, it seems pretty simple.

In your earlier post all you said was the it would have been nice to have more gospels. That was clearly not the question. The question was regarding a specific document written by the specific person of Jesus. Your position seems to be:

1) Any "gospels" would be useful
2) A document written by Jesus that did not take a form similar to the gospels would be "meaningless" (your word)

I posited a document written by Jesus that would not be of the same form as the gospels and asked what I considered to the be the simple question of whether you thought such a document would be useful. Instead of answering, we have now gone off on a tangent where you think I have changed the subject and I am being "tendentious".

At this point, I can only conclude that you are intentionally not trying to understand my posts and just arguing with my points for the sake of argument. I doubt much will be gained from further discussion with you.

Infinity Lover

Dare I post this? (Well you can always disregard it )

How about hair form Jesus. Howcome there isn't even a hair from his head. Or even an alledged hair?

ex-preacher

My top three answers:

1. Then everyone would have really known that he was the son of God. Everyone would believe in him and no one would go to hell. Where's the fun in that?

2. He was afraid that future generations would read his writings and think that they were the Word of God.

3. He was illiterate and thought that the world was about to end anyway.