Vanderzyden

But you are presuming that his aim was to pass teachings for the sake of posterity. You presume that Jesus was just another teacher. By this, I find myself wondering if you have read a single gospel in its entirety. Jesus did not come to give more rules. You must understand that this is essentially the answer to your question.

Ah, but when the wise men come into Judea, who becomes acutely aware of their presence and their intention? The vassal king Herod.

Herod wanted to eliminate this "problem":

So, you can see that Jesus was "famous" from the beginning. As he grew into an adult, he would be aware that any move he made would be carefully watched. Incidentally, note that both events are foretold in the Torah.

Now, since you seem to avoid my insistence upon timing, I provide you with some references:

This is just a small sample. It should be clear to you that timing and specific purpose are vital to Jesus' mission. He did not come to pass on "teachings", as you say. Rather, he came to do the most amazing things in a predetermined fashion. He knew this in advance.

Regarding #2:

He repeatedly stated his views about his relationship to the Father. You will find these throughout the entire NT. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in the NT, so why do you need the writings of Jesus to clarify?

Regarding #3:

Again, there is no controversy over this in the NT. He did not need to say anything about other religions, since he claimed to be the son of God himself! All religiosity collapses before Jesus. What more needs to be said?

Regarding #1, #4:

As I continue to reiterate, this was not his mission. He did not come to "teach". He did not come to provide us with new rules. Knowing who he is and what he did (coupled with the earlier teachings found in the Torah) necessarily means that Jesus' followers should see everyone in the image of God and that one should ever mistreat another. Those who murder others and treat them as animals may call themselves "Christian", but in the end, he will say to them, "I never knew you":

Vanderzyden

(edited to extend some of the biblical references i.e. John 7:3ff, which concerns family pressure for Jesus to begin his public life)

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

lpetrich

(Skeptical(?) on Jesus Christ not needing to invest a big fraction of his time in order to write a book)

Vanderzyden:
But you are presuming that his aim was to pass teachings for the sake of posterity.

So Jesus Christ's teachings are irrelevant? His teachings are commonly considered very great.

You presume that Jesus was just another teacher.

He is often viewed as one -- is that view wrong?

Jesus did not come to give more rules.

However, in the Gospels, he had issued several rules.

Ah, but when the wise men come into Judea, who becomes acutely aware of their presence and their intention? The vassal king Herod.

However, those men themselves never write about their odd journey, and nobody outside of the Gospels mentions it.

Herod wanted to eliminate this "problem"

(stuff on his mass murder of baby boys snipped for brevity...)

However, nobody outside of the writer(s) of the Gospel of Matthew seems to have heard of this atrocity, not even the writers of the rest of the New Testament. Josephus, who had pictured Herod as being willing to murder family members out of fear of competition for his position, had not mentioned this atrocity. Philo had not done so either.

So, you can see that Jesus was "famous" from the beginning. ...

However, nobody outside the Gospel writers seems to have known much about him.

(about JC's relationship with God...) Furthermore, there is no contradiction in the NT, so why do you need the writings of Jesus to clarify?

Except that the New Testament contradicts itself on several issues. Who was present at JC's resurrection? Is adultery a legitimate ground for divorce? How long did JC stay in Jerusalem? Did his Temple temper tantrum displease the Jerusalem authorities?

And let us not forget about his hypocrisy, like denouncing name-calling and then doing lots of name-calling.

He did not need to say anything about other religions, since he claimed to be the son of God himself! All religiosity collapses before Jesus.

So what? Were Pythagoras and Plato sons of Apollo? Was Alexander the Great a son of Zeus?

(my patience has run out)

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Skeptical

First, it appears that you now implicitly agree that Jesus would have had plenty of time to leave some of his writings, so that issue is moot.

Second, I am making no such assumption about his being "just another teacher". If he _was_ just another teacher, I would _not_ expect him to leave any writings. It is specifically because of his supposed status that I find it very odd that he did not. It is not a question of "rules", it is a question of his mission and beliefs on key issues and the lack of this information from his own hand that I find strange.

_You_ are the one who said that if he had written something he would have been "famous" before his time. I see now that you concede that this is not a legitimate argument. Moving on.

What does your idea that he would be "carefully watched" have to do with whether he would write anything? This is irrelevant to the question at hand. Note also that the idea that Jesus had a famous birth is irreconciliable with the idea that his family doesn't understand why he thinks he's important.

First, I didn't avoid it, it just wasn't on point WRT why he wouldn't have written anything. He clearly had time to do so as you implicitly acknowledge. Second, all you are saying is that because we don't have any writings, it couldn't have been part of his mission. I don't find such an argument compelling. How do we know we have a complete picture of what his sense of his mission was without first hand information? Answer: we don't.

Because the language is sufficiently abstract and inexact that differing interpretations are possible and even likely. The Marcion incident clearly shows this problem.

So you think that persecuting people of religious beliefs is ok? Christians have gotten this idea from the NT, if Jesus wouldn't have approved then he should have spelled it out. Apparently his "turn the other cheek" saying wasn't sufficient.

And how valuable would it have been if he had simply spelled that out in his own writing? How much evil would have been averted with even a single page of clear, unambiguous denunciation of these attrocities? All you are saying is that if it isn't in the gospels, it wasn't part of his mission, but this is clearly problematic.

Even if the gospels are fairly accurate in his sayings, that in no way means they are _complete_ in the sense of completely conveying his thoughts on crucial matters. Jesus wasn't around to supervise the writings, we cannot know what he would have thought of what was written and, more importantly, what was left out.

There is nothing in the gospels that is incompatible with the idea that part of Jesus' mission would be to leave some of his own writings. Your just assuming it wasn't because we apparently don't have such writings.

I notice also that you chose to completely ignore my comments regarding Jesus' belief about his return after boldly stating that the words of Jesus "contain nothing" to support that he thought his return was imminent.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

aikido7

Getting back to the specific query in this thread, I have a few random burps:

Could it be that maybe Jesus never wrote anything because he was an oral teacher in a tribal, largely non-literal culture? (You don't start handing out tracts to mostly illiterate farmers and fishermen!)

The historical figure seems to have taught primarily in parables, using them to radically reverse normal expectations. He was probably pretty good at story-telling, but because it was written down may be the reason its eventual transmission sounds sort of numbing and too familiar today. I am convinced his stories were lengthy and lively and probably depended a lot on the interaction between him and his audience. They may have been more like an interactive performance piece or comic monologue than what we might think of as "preaching."

There are still some gems to be found in the words that were transmitted and there has been some recent scholarly work on this by Brandon Scott and others. It seems that Jesus' new vision of Judaism definitely pushed envelopes as well as buttons. And there is much that he is supposed to have said that still remains puzzling and enigmatic. Recent contextual work has helped to bring out much more of what he may have been pointing towards.

The early church, ipso facto, mostly pointed at his pointing finger and still seems stuck largely in that mode.

Attempting to put his original speech in textual form after his death (especially using the smaller codex form) was a handy way to spread the word and to codify the spirit of his life into the "good news." Once it was written down, it necessarily became more uniquely "dogmatic" to reflect the agendas of the four early Christian groups that made it into the canonical New Testament.

He wasn't a theologian, no matter how he is shown rambling and philosophizing in John's gospel. The content there is dead,long and boring and seems closer to the "concretization" of orality than the first three accounts (in my mind no one goes around saying "I am the bread of life," etc. without getting stoned or shunned or whacked up the side of his head!)

There is some story in one of the gospels, I think, where Jesus is shown to have written something in the dirt after a healing. Some scholar once suggested he wrote incantations in the dirt because a devout Jew was forbidden to write anything on parchment on the Sabbath.

The event itself may be a spurious addition to the text but its eerie matter-of-factness has always seemed plausible to me.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Vanderzyden

OK, I agree that there was time to write. But you are avoiding my main point, which is that Jesus' purpose was not to write. His mission did not require writing. He did not need to write. So, it would make little sense for him to write, whether he had time or not. Given that his purpose--once his work began--was to restore humans to their proper humanity, any precious time that he spent writing would be time spent away from his restorative work. Do you understand now what I mean now when I say that he didn't have time during his public life? Also, given what we know of him in the gospels, he would have sufficient foresight in his pre-public life. He fully understood the nature of his impending public life and this knowledge would necessarily preclude any writing. See below.

Before I continue with the topic, I think it's important that I make an observation that is characteristic of your replies. You declare "so that issue is moot". I wonder, do you see this as a competition? I am left to wonder about your motives when you write such things. "Why are motives important?", you may ask. Well, once the conversation has gone a certain length, the motives of the participants becomes an important consideration in the investment of time. Perhaps you see our dialogue as merely a debate, and you are fully intent on winning. Or, maybe your questions are rhetorical, meant only to raise doubts. (If everyone doubted everything, and in turn doubted those doubts, how would we function at all?) I also notice that there is no indication of willingness on your part to concede anything. You seem to find a way to "shoot down" particular aspects of an argument, while largely ignoring or mischaracterizing its essence. I see the same pattern in the "non-natural knowledge" thread. It would be great if you could address this in your next reply.

Please note: I intend no offense whatsoever. However, I think that we have been engaged long enough now that my concerns are warranted. Reciprocally, I would ask that you inform me of what you find puzzling about me, and I will address your concerns. Thanks.

I don't see how you can say this, since you presume that his writings would make legalistic details very clear to the rest of humanity. You indicate that the gospels leave some particulars unanswered, and that Jesus' own words on these matters would bring clarity. It's clear that you require specific regulations to address such matters as religious persecution and human mistreatment. Your expectations indicate that you see him as just one man among many who might have a marginally better code of ethics. Indeed, this is to see him as just one more law-maker, yet one more teacher.

Here is another blantant example of your dismissal. What was my point about his public life? Did you read it? Let me try again:

With a sampling of biblical references, I have demonstrated that Jesus placed special emphasis on timing. How could you miss this in my last two replies? He knew that his public life would begin and end at certain points. He knew that he would not need to write. If he did write, he would become a public figure before his time. As I demonstrated with the accounts concerning Herod (did you read them, or did you reject them out-of-hand?), his birth alone was public knowledge. His parents went to hide him: first in Egypt, then in the rural town of Nazareth.

Also, we have to wonder (as others have) if he would have access to writing materials. If he were to ask for them (in his ancient rural context), could his family afford them, and would this draw more attention to himself? Even his brothers and sisters were pressuring him to begin a ministry: why, they wondered, was he waiting to share himself with the entire world? He answered them, as he did throughout his life, that "the time had not come".

Again, you are completely misconstrue my position. You are taking the exact opposite of what I say and you say that I agree. So, let me state it again: I am arguing that writing was not part of his mission, therefore we do not have his writings.

I have indicated why Marcion is not a problem. You have shown me nothing "clear" about his relevance to the discussion at hand. Until you demonstrate why he should be taken seriously, we should not bother even mentioning his name.

You are correct in one aspect: Jesus did not take each human phenomena and make a specific pronouncement. That much is true. But again, that was not his purpose. However, he did make broad generalizations which cover everything that is wrong with the human condition. There are many statements that are general, and yet very clear. Again, I will cite biblical references to make my case. (Your terse replies concerning previous references leaves me to guess whether you find the Bible relevant at all. But, of course, I have already insisted that we must go to the Bible because we don't have much else). Let me implore you to actually read the following, which directly encompass the concerns that you raise in #1 and #4. If you choose to dismiss these references, then I think we will continue to have difficulty in advancing our discussion.

Not only does Jesus say that we must love others, but we must love our enemies. If someone is wronged or mistreated, they may not retaliate. He implores us to stop with the legalistic nitpicking. Instead, we are to continually love each other as fellow humans. When I apply this personally, I understand that I am to treat others in a way that I would want to be treated in a similar circumstance. And that often means being merciful. So, how does this apply to slavery? It means that no man may take "ownership" of another, since to do so is to be unmerciful and to fail in showing love (whether that person is an enemy or not). But what about witchcraft, you ask, which is a religious practice? Ten verses later in the same chapter of Luke, we find a universal statement:

This is obvious. One person is not justified in condemning another. No persecution is permitted whatsoever, and this includes "religious" persecution. Of course, we must realize that civil and political matters come into play when we consider the Salem witch trials or European witch hunts. It is unreasonable to simply ascribe persecution of witches to followers of Christ. Certainly, you are not justified in doing so exclusively. Surely you must realize that many of those who wear the label "Christian" do not follow Christ in the least. Institutions are political entities, and do not follow Christ; individuals do. And many individuals simply belong to a faction which in some manner bears his name. If their motivation is out of fear, or politics, or selfishness, or pure condemnation, then these people do not follow Christ in what they are doing. This is similar to the reasoning which says that more evil has been committed in the name of religion. This is patently false. All we need do is consider the likes of Hitler or Stalin, who were completely irreligious.

There are many things that Jesus makes clear, such as the statements above, of which so-called Christians are either ignorant or disobedient. It is a matter of distortion, or self-justification. It is NOT a matter of ambiguity on the part of Jesus. If he were to actually write what he said, it would make no difference, because some people would claim to follow him and yet blatantly behave in the opposite manner. Such people inevitably find some other means for justifying their actions.

Let me bring two other examples to your attention:

First, Jesus refers to the Old Testament. But notice, he says that our actions are not the primary concern. It is a matter of the heart. He is so bold as to insist that our thoughts can be wrong! Amazing, is it not? So, these statements have very broad coverage. If someone wants to find an exception by which to justify their anger at someone else, they must come to the words of Jesus, which set the most exacting and all-encompassing standards of human behavior.

Similarly, we have his words on infidelity:

So, upon looking at another woman, I then desire to have sex with her, I am effectively cheating on my wife. Why? Because my thoughts are a more intrinsic part of me than my actions. Collectively, my dispositions are my character. Also, you will agree that every wrong action is preceeded by wrong thoughts.

As you can see, Jesus makes very broad statements which cover all of human experience. He does not maintain the legalistic trajectory of the Torah. In fact, he indicates that he supersedes the law. He does this not, however, with more laws, but with himself:

You insinuate that I condone religious persecution. This is a mistake:

No, I don't consider persecution to be OK. I have already informed you that you are in error to presume that I am just another Christian. Do you remember this from the other thread? You have just confirmed what I had supposed.

More importantly, you can see from the passages above--which are merely a small sample--that Jesus forbids persecution of any kind. They are all-encompassing statements which say to the reader: "No, you must not. Not ever."

Also, let us remember that persecution is very different from exclusivity. Surely you are familiar with this statement from Jesus:

While Jesus doesn't explicitly name other belief systems as erroneous, he does make clear that there is only one way to God: through Him. Notice that he is not saying, "these are good teachings, so it makes good sense to follow them". No, he is saying that he is the very personification of Truth. To those that are looking, he says that he is The Way. Notice he is talking about himself, not his teachings. He claims that he is the only one by which his hearers may have access to God. This does not condemn other religions, but makes them utterly inept.

As you can see, Jesus claims exclusivity. He justifies it upon the miraculous evidence. But he does not encourage persecution towards those who don't believe. In fact, he forbids it entirely. Instead, he calls upon his listeners to do what is perhaps the most difficult thing for a human: loving your enemies. That is, those who you would otherwise condemn (if only in your thoughts), you must instead love them as human beings--doing them no harm, but only good.

Perhaps you will simply ignore this, or dismiss it categorically. But that is your loss, Skeptical. I have seen both sides, considering them both very carefully. Have you done the same? There are tremendous benefits that result from a genuine sustained effort to justify one's beliefs. May I encourage you to do that for yourself?

One last thing. You also wanted me to respond to this:

I agree with you that this statement would be confusing to the typical contemporary listener. It even appears somewhat strange when considering only its immediate context. I have not performed an exhaustive inquiry into this statement. However, we may examine other references that Jesus made concerning death and dying (e.g. the second death, loss of the soul, etc.) Indeed, Jesus may not be referring to physical, but spiritual death. We may also consider what he means by "coming in his kingdom". Perhaps he was referring to the resurrection. Other commentators point to the next chapter in Matthew, where Jesus is tranfigured before some of the disciples. In consideration of all of the gospels, we do immediately recognize that many things became clear only after certain events took place, including the resurrection itself. There are several other plausible interpretions are available, and I'm sure that arguments have been advanced to decide which is most suitable.

At any rate, it is not reasonable to conclude that Jesus was simply "mistaken".

Vanderzyden

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

lpetrich

Which made him dependent on his followers, who would then distort and twist his message and put words into his mouth that he had never said.

(VZ: a lot of stuff in the Gospels about timing...)

An ingenious apologetic, but ultimately hollow.

The Herod story is a fairy tale, pure and simple. Nowhere else does the New Testament mention it, and no outside source mentions it. Josephus might have, but he did not. In fact, this story is much like how various legendary heroes are menaced by various enemies when they are born. King Amulius vs. Romulus and Remus, Hera vs. Hercules, King Kamsa vs. Krishna, etc.

(VZ on how JC's getting writing materials would draw attention to him...)

Except that there is no independent evidence that getting writing materials would attract a lot of attention.

(VZ on how JC had laid down some very general rules instead of specific ones, rules such as loving one's enemies... and how that supposedly forbids slavery...)

However, the writers of the epistles did not get the message, and JC himself failed to have much love for the Scribes and Pharisees. Whom he called nasty names after forbidding name-calling.

But why are these fakers allowed to get away with being fakers? Because the churches would lose much of their financing if these fakers became displeased enough to depart?

(VZ on how religious persecution was implicitly forbidden by JC...)

However, I fail to follow that "deduction", and one would think otherwise from JC's vilifications of those who would not listen to him, and of Scribes and Pharisees.

Skeptical

I understood it the first time. My point still stands that he could have written anytime before he began his "official" ministry.

I see it as a sort of competition of ideas, that seems to me to be what a discussion/debate is. During discussions, I like to note when points of agreement are reached so that the discussion can proceed and the same ground doesn't have to be covered multiple times and key issues of disagreement can be focused on more clearly.

Sometimes, perhaps a bit of both. Sometimes, neither. It depends on the situation. In this particular case, I have some definite ideas, but I am willing to consider arguments that have merit and I do find it hard to reconcile the picture of Jesus in the NT with the fact that he apparently didn't leave any writings.

I don't concede much because generally I am well read on the subjects I discuss and have thought through them thoroughly before I make a point. I could be wrong, but much sound argument has to be presented to convince me on subjects I am knowledgable about. On the other hand, I do my best to try to be open minded, "just not so open that my brains fall out". (I forget who said that)

I completely disagree that I ignore or mischaracterize _anything_ you or anyone else has said. To my knowledge I have not ignored anything someone has posted directly to me and I certainly have not tried to mischaracterize anyones views.

One area could have been what could be called "regulatory", and that would be important but not the only area. His thoughts on his personal mission and relationship to God would also have been important and obviously not "regulatory". Also, there have been many, many law-givers throughout history, the vast majority of which did not leave their own writings. It is only when one posits that someones teachings and beliefs are so important that they need to be understood thousands of years into the future that the lack of a teachers writings seem curious.

Your just assuming "he knew that he would not need to write" when clearly there are things that could have been very important for him to write about.

Not only did I read them, I considered them and then concluded they didn't have merit because:

1) Jesus could have kept his writing secret, just as he kept his mission to himself until he was ready
2) If he had wisemen from the east following a new star, he would have been known and he certainly could have been found by Herod who had the full might of the Roman empire behind him

surely Joseph could have made a few sacrifices to allow Jesus the opportunity to write. After all, angels had already told him how important Jesus was.

<strong> Ok. That was my take on what you were saying, perhaps I'm wrong.

The point is that the controvery over Marcion was important and critical. Eusebius, the "father of church history" and the author of the _only_ record we have of the first 300 hundred years of Christianity was an early supporter of Marcion. If he had not renounced him when he did, he would surely have been put to the sword and with him would have vanished the scant record we have of the insider account of the christian church in its formative years. I would think the importance of this incident would be clear.

The problem is that what you find clear, others obviously don't. If they were clear, many evils, some of which I have already mentioned, would have been averted or at the very least severly curtailed. I also think that the meanings are clear, but there is sufficient "wiggle room" for those that want to claim to be christian and then systematically ignore most of what Jesus is reported to have said.

Again, I agree with you on the meaning of the verses, but the problem is that many obviously do not and have not. "Witches" were still being burned only 400 years ago, not that long in the grand scheme of things. I don't dismiss the references, but many others who have claimed to follow christianity have and found it quite easy to do so. Perhaps a document from Jesus' hand wouldn't have stopped all of the evils, but it couldn't have hurt.

I agree, problem is many found the burning of witches and slavery to be perfectly compatible with the bible. Again, a document from Jesus might not have stopped it all, but it would certainly have helped.

The burning of witches was systematically pursued by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. It was the official position of the Pope. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people calling themselves Christians either explicitly or implicitly condoned it. I am sure that in the minds of the vast majority of the people involved they were "good christians". IMO, one simple verse condemning this particular practice could have made a substantial difference.

Not that it matters much for this discussion, but regarding hitler you might want to look <a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. Evil is committed by the powerful against the weak with the consent of the many. Religion is one of the better ways (but not the only way) that the powerful have found to control the many. Most religious groups advocate faith over reason and systematically erode the ability of the masses to determine when they are being mislead and deceived. I think history shows this to be true.

I tend to agree with this, but I also think that people would have a lot harder time justifying a specific action condemned from the hand of Jesus himself.

I agree that there is much that is covered in broad terms and for anyone who truly wanted to follow the teachings, they could figure out that witch burnings and slavery were wrong. Obviously many people fell outside of this category though. Again, specific statements by Jesus may not have been 100% effective, but I don't see how it couldn't have helped.

Actually I was trying to show that the idea that nothing more need be said was incorrect and that much more needed to be said. I don't believe that you support persecuting other religions.

Which I personally find very problematic, but that's another story. The central problem with this is that those claiming to be christian used statements such as this to attempt to destroy "infidels" such as Muslims during the crusades. A few additional statements clarifying this might have been in order and might have prevented significant evil.

Those are good sentiments, I just wish he had spelled out a few more things a little more concretely.

I do it every day. I have no problem whatsoever with many of the sayings attributed to Jesus, I just don't think that is sufficient to make me a "christian".

This is just another way of saying "he lied" unless you (or anyone else) wants to try and make the argument that those standing there _knew_ he was actually speaking metaphorically or referring to something else which I find quite a stretch given the context of the statements. I'm also sure arguments have been advanced, its just that what is "most suitable" usually translates into "how do we avoid the problem since we know Jesus cannot have been wrong?"

It is perfectly reasonable unless you simply cannot accept that he could have been wrong, which is apparently your position.

lpetrich

About witch hunts, a simpler way of forbidding them would have been to say something like:

Do not be quick to blame misfortunes like bad weather and sick cattle on malicious sorcery; these events have causes other than such sorcery.

Baidarka

The question that started this thread is “Why wouldn't Jesus have written anything?”

How do we know that he didn’t? If he wrote something would the Church have preserved it? The holy books of the Nag Hammadi Library had to be hidden from book burning Christians. Even the Gospel of Thomas which is supposed to be the words of Jesus had to be hidden. How great was the destruction of Jerusalem? It is said that the Romans were pretty thorough burning and pillaging everything. Is it reasonable to expect that any writing by Jesus would have survived the Roman destruction?

If Jesus wrote anything then we might have a carefully edited copy of his words in Q. We might have his words in the Gospel of Thomas. If his words were at variance with the philosophy and politics of the early church they would have to be rewritten or destroyed.
We don’t know if he wrote anything or not. We don’t know if he was a violent political revolutionary, a religious visionary, a magician using cheap tricks to fleece the gullible, a myth or a mushroom. I think that this discussion is predicated on the idea that Jesus didn’t write anything.
Who says that he didn’t write anything? What do you base this on?

lpetrich

The lack of documents purportedly written by him. It is entirely possible that he had written some books that did not survive, but his followers would have been very interested in copying and preserving them -- and, I suspect, rewriting them when it is expedient to do so.

However, the Jesus-myth hypothesis renders this question moot, because no Jesus Christ means nothing written by him.


Vanderzyden's apologetics are a masterpiece of specious argumentation; one wonders what arguments he'd come up with if the Gospels had described Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene as passionately kissing and making out.