leonarde

Wdog,
Been there. Done that. This thread. Pages 1 and 2
(and 3 and 4).

Cheers!

wdog

doh!, I am not sure how I missed it all. I do think you missed the boat on some but I'll just stand aside unless you want have a discussion

Vanderzyden

Skeptical,

Regarding the meaning of "son of God", you say:

It is insufficient to simply ascribe "great importance" to this term and, from that, claim that it justifiably supports your expectation.

The Son of God has supernatural ability. Highly prominent were his powers of physical healing. That is clear from the NT. But, the most amazing Event of all history is the Resurrection. Following his physical death, the Father (God) raised the Son to life. Your belief in this is largely irrelevant. I am focusing on the content of the gospels and what is said concerning his mission.

His mission did not include writing.

His purpose was to establish the kingdom of God.

His aim was to bring restoration to a fallen world.

His chief goal was, as you correctly say, to serve as the perfect sacrifice for those who would believe in him.

He came to give life, not publish.

The record of his life is important. On this, we agree. However, it is more than sufficient to have reporters do the writing. As I have said previously, it may be argued that writing would be a waste of Jesus' time. You raised an objection to this, so now I will address it.

If he began to write before his public life began, then he would no doubt have become distracted. Also, he would "become famous" before his time. If you know the NT, then you must realize the importance of timing in the gospels.

Furthermore, people such as yourself might then wonder why he was investing time writing when he should have been changing lives with his unique abilities. You might then wonder why he didn't have a scribe record things for him while he did more important work. Well, that is exactly what happened! Lifes were changed, notes were taken. Eventually, entire accounts of his life were compiled (i.e. the gospels).

Now, Skeptical, I would like to know what controversies would be clear that cannot be addressed with the writings we possess. You insist that Marcion is problematic. My understanding is that his pseudo-gnosis is easily <a href="http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml" target="_blank">refuted</a>. Most puzzling is his rejection of the OT, to which Jesus made repeated reference. He also abridged Paul's letters to suit his whims (like the "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar). I wonder if you really take Marcion seriously or if you simply raise this as one of several minor objections. Surely you must realize that there are much stronger arguments.

So, please tell us: beyond Marcion, what controversies would be settled to your satisfaction by writings of Jesus? Please be specific.

Oh, here's something else that I find interesting in your reply:

So, you are saying that he was apparently wrong because he has not met your expectations. But so far we have nothing but your opinion on the matter. There is no justification on your part. Do you think that no controversies would exist if he wrote something? No, surely you don't think that.

You further confound the issue by drawing a parallel between his lack of writings and his supposed error on the time of his return. But I now ask you to justify this claim. Certainly, his followers misunderstood the time of his return. That is clear. However, the words of Jesus contain nothing to indicate that he would return "early" or "late" in time. In fact, he indicated that the parousia event was at that time indeterminate.

Vanderzyden

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Baidarka

Skeptical wrote;
“ The point is that we only have documents written by other people and nothing even claimed to have been written by Jesus.”

The Gospel of Thomas claims to be the words of Jesus and it could very well be. It starts off with “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymose Judas Thomas wrote down” Does a dictated text count as being written by Jesus?

Skeptical

You asked why I used the term "son of God" if I didn't research its meaning. I have researched it, it's just that the meaning is not at all clear and as far as I can tell there is no consensus view. That was my point.

Your just assuming that because we have no writing, it wasn't part of his mission.

Please describe what you personally mean by "kingdom of God". (yes, I have researched this as well, but opinions on the subject vary)

This is just another way of saying that he didn't expect his teachings to be that important to far distant future generations, which I happen to agree with.

Obviously it was not sufficient since a great many controversies and evils have arisen in the name of Christianity in the past 2,000 years.

Distracted from what, being a carpenters son? The gospels records that he knew of his mission at least as early as the age of 12. Also according to the gospels he didn't begin his ministry until he was around 30. That's 18X365=6570 nights during which he could have written the equivalent of perhaps 30 pages of text (my estimate, the exact number isn't important). That's less than 2 pages a year, not exactly a herculean effort.

As for being "famous" before his time, did not the arrival of wisemen from the east bearing gifts of gold raise a few eyebrows? This line of argument also assumes _circulation_ of writings by Jesus prior to his ministry. There were no tabloids then, Jesus could have kept any writing he did to himself and released it to his disciples at the "appointed time". None of this is far fetched as far as I can tell.

Comparing the gospels we have to a scribe taking notes is quite a bit of a stretch. It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the authors of the gospels are anonymous, so at best we have 2nd or 3rd hand reports. On top of this, the gospel writers clearly didn't consider their accounts definitive since they changed them in particular ways according to their particular theological conceptions. A comparison to a scribe taking notes is clearly not applicable.

It wasn't easily refuted in the early church. Esuebius nearly lost his head over his early support of Marcion and it was not clear at all that Marcion's views wouldn't prevail. Only in hindsight is it "easily refuted".

Perhaps Marcion saw what contemporary scholars see, that 1st century Jewish ideas regarding a "messiah" appear to be incompatible with Jesus fulfilling a messianic role.

I do realize it, that was just a low hanging fruit example.

Here's a short list of things that would have been helpful:

1) clear condemnation of slavery
2) clear indication of his own views of his own relationship to God
3) clear indication of his own views of other religions
4) clear condemnation of witch burnings

You might say "these issues are covered in the gospels", and in roundabout ways they probably are. The problem is that they don't appear to have been covered clearly enough given history as we know it.

No, he would be apparently wrong because there are problems that could have been averted. If we had a document with early attestation by Jesus simply saying "it is always wrong to burn or in any way harm someone you think is a witch", this would have gone a long way toward eliminating the insanity of the witch burnings that raged across Europe for 400 years. If such a document said "owning and trading in slaves is always wrong, slavery should be abolished", no southern slaveholder could have appealed to the Bible to reinforce his views. With only 2 statements, much evil could have been averted or at the very least severly tempered.

Saying "contain nothing" is quite a stretch:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (NIV: Mat. 16:27-28)

Compare also Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27

If such a conversation took place, the meaning to those being spoken to would clearly be that Jesus was coming almost immediately, certainly within their lifetime. You can say they misinterpreted, but as far as I can tell it cannot be reasonably asserted that the people hearing this would not have naturally concluded that Jesus would come in their lifetime. Jesus would know that this is what they would think so he either:

1) Lied to them
2) Was mistaken

I vote for 2.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

IMO, no. The gospels also claim to be the words of Jesus, even though they don't explicitly claim they were "dictated". Which is not to say the GoT is unimportant, it's just not the same as having a document claimed to be written _by_ Jesus in my view.

lpetrich

After reading Vanderzyden's comments, I have come to the conclusion that if the Gospels had described in detail a love affair between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, then he and others like him would erect an elaborate theological superstructure on that love affair.

Vanderzyden:
The Son of God has supernatural ability. Highly prominent were his powers of physical healing. That is clear from the NT.

Yawn. Jesus Christ is hardly alone in being ascribed the ability to work magical/miraculous cures. How was he any different from your friendly neighborhood exorcist? And practicing exorcism is no difference since JC himself was described as being an exorcist.

And why hadn't he put hospitals out of work?

But, the most amazing Event of all history is the Resurrection. Following his physical death, the Father (God) raised the Son to life.

Another yawn. Lots of pagan deities and heroes had died and arose, visited the realm of the dead, etc.

His mission did not include writing.

"I did not lose, because I was never in the race"

His chief goal was, as you correctly say, to serve as the perfect sacrifice for those who would believe in him.

A "perfect sacrifice" who could have jumped off of that cross.

… However, it is more than sufficient to have reporters do the writing.

Who turn out to be a bunch of hagiographers! And why is there no detailed record of Jesus Christ's career besides the Gospels, both canonical and noncanonical?

If he began to write before his public life began, then he would no doubt have become distracted.

As if Jesus Christ had been fallible.

Also, he would "become famous" before his time. If you know the NT, then you must realize the importance of timing in the gospels.

I don't see the point.

Furthermore, people such as yourself might then wonder why he was investing time writing when he should have been changing lives with his unique abilities. …

Cry us all a river, O VZ.

You further confound the issue by drawing a parallel between his lack of writings and his supposed error on the time of his return. But I now ask you to justify this claim. Certainly, his followers misunderstood the time of his return. That is clear. However, the words of Jesus contain nothing to indicate that he would return "early" or "late" in time. In fact, he indicated that the parousia event was at that time indeterminate.

How ingeniously evasive.

Starboy

It is also possible that whatever writings there were either by Jesus or dictated by Jesus were in the hands of the pillars of Jerusalem and were destroyed when the Romans destroyed the city.

Starboy

Baidarka

Skeptical wrote;
“ The point is that we only have documents written by other people and nothing even claimed to have been written by Jesus.”

The Gospel of Thomas claims to be the words of Jesus and it could very well be. It starts off with “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymose Judas Thomas wrote down” Does a dictated text count as being written by Jesus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skeptical wrote;
IMO, no. The gospels also claim to be the words of Jesus, even though they don't explicitly claim they were "dictated". Which is not to say the GoT is unimportant, it's just not the same as having a document claimed to be written _by_ Jesus in my view.


The Gospels never claimed to be the words of Jesus. They only claim to contain his words within the wittings of others, unless you mean that all the Gospel writers were simply taking dictation from the holy spirit who was taking dictation from Jesus.
Even though I think that Jesus might be a mushroom I must say that if Jesus dictated The Gospel of Thomas then IMO, yes. I also think he could also have written Q.
Muslims claim that Mohammed wrote the Koran by dictation.
Lets face it Kings and Bosses don't write they dictate.

Skeptical

No, I meant that they claim to have direct quotations from Jesus albeit in a narrative context.

The problem I see with the dictation idea is that the impression I got from reading the GoT is that it is a recollection of sayings and not something that was written with Jesus sitting down reciting things and someone dutifully recording. This leaves room for a lot of human error in the recollecting process and also leaves a lot of room for things not being remembered at all.

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to me that GoT is a straight-forward dictation. However, if we were to grant it such status, I can see how one might argue that it would count as a document "by Jesus".