Skeptical

Actually, my original question was "why wouldn't we have such a document?". I think it does cause a serious problem, but getting you to even admit it would have been useful seems to require herculean effort.

Skeptical

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

I still think the fact that we don't have a document is clearly problematic, but there's obviously no hope of getting you to admit that, so I'll settle for you granting it would have been useful.

leonarde

From leonarde first post on page 3: By "nice" I meant useful. By "better" I meant MORE
useful. Are we speaking the same language??? Over.

Cheers!

Skeptical

Apparently not. I asked a simple yes or no question that could have been answered "yes" or "no". Am I to infer that this post is meant to indicate that the answer to my question of whether you now grant that a document _written by Jesus_ would have been useful is "yes"? Again, a simple yes or no will do.

leonarde

Skeptical,
You are to infer that I explicitly indicated AT LEAST as early as my first post on page 3 that such a highly hypothetical Jesus-written text WOULD BE useful but that so would LOTS of OTHER
hypothetical texts. Capisc'? (No you don't have
to answer in any particular form!)

It's been real, Skeptical.

Cheers!

Skeptical

I suppose I should be suprised by your evasions, but I'm not. You seem to have an inability to answer a simple question with a simple answer. The question had nothing to do with "lots of other hypothetical texts" but with a specific hypothetical text from the very specific person of Jesus. By answering in this way you are trying to say both "yes" and "no" at the same time. You want to indicate that writings by Jesus would be useful, but you don't want to give it any special status as if any other early writings, even by unkown persons, would be just as useful.

This is more or less what I expected from a theist actually. The truth of course is that if we did have such a document, Christian apologists for the past 2,000 years would have been trumpeting about it as loud and as long as they could that it was the most important document ever written. You yourself would no doubt consider it the most important document ever written and would consult it daily. You don't want to admit or even consider this possibility, so you avoid the implications like the plague.

I imagine your thought process going something like this:

1) Yes, it would have been extraordinarily nice to have such a document from Jesus
2) Oh, but we don't, so therefore it couldn't have been useful or Jesus would have left it
3) Uh oh, I seem to have admitted that it would have been useful
4) I know, I'll say _any_ extra documents would have been useful, thereby avoiding the question entirely and making it look like I already answered the question earlier

Thanks for the input, I think your position is clear.

Infinity Lover

I'm not sure if this angle has been applied yet.
Concerning Jesus being illiterate or not.

That would not only influence writing, but off course also reading.

Or in other words his ability to familliarize himself with the Torah.

leonarde

Posted by Skeptical: Attentive readers will note that Skeptical inserted the word "extraordinarily" into a point
attributed to me. It (the use of this word) apparently reflects Skeptical's utter confusion
in understanding my position.

Cheers!

Vanderzyden

Skeptical,

It is very apparent that your have already made your decision. By all appearances, you are unwilling to explore the issue. The way I see it, your expectations have not been met, so you will not consider alternatives. Is it not true that you are simply looking to make your own position stronger? We certainly are left to wonder if you care about finding the truth, or if you are merely looking for more ways to convince yourself that you are correct. Surely you'll agree that there is an immense difference. Would you mind clarifying where I am in error in my assessment?

In this first rebuttal, I see that you imagine that your expectations circumscribe logic itself. It seems as though you imply that whatever is logical must certainly correspond with your demands. If not, then you deem it to be illogical. Now, perhaps you will say that your expectations are shared by many others. But of course, this is simply the same thing multiplied many times over.

Surely you realize that people are convicted in court on the basis of secondhand and thirdhand testimony. Why, then, do you reject the ancient writings on a similar basis? We have many early manuscripts. Secondhand testimony can be very strong. Consider this: Your wife comes to give you an account of a very serious matter--say, the accidental death of a loved one. Then, your trusted friend comes to tell you a story of the same event--a story that is essentially the same but relays different details than your wife's account. Will you accept the testimony of both?

Let me come back to expectations. If you have read Paul, then you know he consistently indicates that Jesus was the great iconoclast. He has obliterated religious icons and vaporized comfortable beliefs. Paul clearly had ideas of what the Messiah would be, and was persecuting followers of Jesus because he could not believe that Jesus was the One. All of the common wisdom could not predict what the Messiah would be like. The expectations of his contemporaries went unsatisfied, so why do you think that yours should be?

Here's something interesting. You say:

You may see it as a "weak argument", but its essentially all you have at your disposal. Is that not true? Perhaps you could tell me what additional information--pertinent to this discussion--that you will obtain about Jesus from the writings of Josephus, or the early church fathers. I submit to you that you will learn nothing more. The Bible is more than sufficient.

This is also puzzling in another way: Since we are discussing Jesus, I wonder why you imply that we shouldn't look to the Bible as we discuss these matters. I presume it is because you have already fully rejected it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Biblical content has far more authority than you or I.

Since you are familiar with the NT, you know that Jesus himself talked about people's expectations:

Some people saw him as a mere miracle-worker, some saw a political ruler, some saw a "good teacher". Otherssaw him as a threat to their religious stranglehold upon the people. And yet, he showed them all that they were wrong--very wrong.

You have merely asserted that it is "logical" that Jesus should have left his own writings. But I don't see a justification, especially considering the uniqueness of Jesus. Please answer this question, Skeptical:

Why is it reasonable to insist that the son of God should leave writings?

I should think that it is quite reasonable that he would accomplish his mission in a way that is inherently personal, just as he has acted at other times in history. Concerning God, we should expect the unexpected, and we should expect to be amazed.

Vanderzyden

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Skeptical

Leonarde, you really need to learn to actually _read_ my posts. I said:

"I imagine your thought process going like this..."

In other words, my _opinion_ of the thoughts going through your head is what followed, not what you actually posted. I clearly didn't say that was what you posted. It was a surmise on my part on what's really happening in your head, but I believe it to be accurate considering your ridiculous implication that any early document in the christian community would have been just as useful as a document written by Jesus.

I understand your position perfectly. You refuse to acknowledge how important a document by Jesus would have been because to admit it would have been important would clearly raise additional issues. So, instead you avoid the question by saying any early additional documents would have been useful, clearly implying a document by Jesus would have had no special status different than any other existing or hypothetical documents in the early Christian movement.

Your position is clear, it's just ridiculous.