Anti-Creedance Front

I like to use their own theology against them. For instance, if all men are sinful, then wouldn't the Bible translated through the minds of men be sinful, or wouldn't god have sent the message directly himself? I've never said it outside the internet, but I'd love to ask it of a door-to-door solicitor. I can just imagine how they would gawk. Most people on the internet haven't come up with an answer for this one either, they just say (as is commonly heard), what are you talking about?

leonarde

I'm not clear on what you mean by "sinful" as it
relates to books: you aren't talking about obscene
books. I don't think even animals can be "sinful".
Vicious, yes. Deadly, yes. But sinful? And then,
books?
If you are speaking metaphorically then, yes, no book would be able to fully capture the essence of
the Divine. That is touched on at the end of John's Gospel......

Amen-Moses

Of course being God he could have left something written on an indestructable medium in all the languages of earth both past, present and future. Now that would be compelling evidence.

Of course according to Joe Smith he did! (well at least in a language easily decipherable with the help of an "angel" called Moron)

Personally I reckon that if there is a God his name is Loki.

Amen-Moses

Radorth

Yes Clarice- why are you following A-M's example?


[/QUOTE]So I ask again, why didn't Jesus leave any personal writings?

[/QUOTE]

Because he was illiterate? And the whole problem with the world is that God can't write?

No, but I suppose either that Jesus noticed folks taking notes and decided to pray and preach instead. Or, since he also believed the Holy Spirit would "bring all things to your rememberance," he saw no need.

Radorth

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

leonarde

The 4th Chapter of Luke portrays Jesus in a synagogue reading from the Scripture, then passing
the book back to the attendant. (verses 16 to 21)

When a woman caught in adultery is brought to Him,
he listens to the case against her and simultaneously writes something in the sand. (Haven't looked up the verses/Gospel for that one
yet).

The Gospels definitely give one the impression He
was literate......

Kosh

The problem with the world is that "God's" writing looks an awfull lot like that of Ignorant Goat Herders.

Why do you think the Holy Spirit made so many errors and contradictions?

sbaii

I agree with Amen Moses. Why didn't Jesus do Yahweh one better and score some of his wisdom into the side of a mountain in monumental letters? And in at least five different languages ? After all, Jesus would have known that something like that had been done before. But NOOOO. He relied on the least reliable form of preserving ideas, the spoken word. Not very good planning. Or maybe the last lines of the movie Picking Up the Pieces more accurately describe god's opinion of our kvetching over the vicissitudes of life: If they can't take a joke,
@#% 'em.

Skeptical

However, according to the NT, Jesus cannot be compared to any other world figure or leader. According to the gospels, Jesus is the most important figure to have ever lived and his story and doctrines the most important information ever to exist. On this criteria, it seems that first hand knowledge from the man himself would have been expected.

But it's not an either/or situation. Having information from Jesus own hand, complete with a tradition that it was his writing verified by Paul within 20 years after his death could only strengthen the case. If Christians had documents reported to have been written by Jesus himself with strong external evidence attesting this, the Christian cause would be greatly enhanced.

But again, it's not an either/or situation. Assume everything about Paul's conversion is still the same as told in the NT, but now add that when he goes to Jeruselem he finds out that the disciples have documents written by Jesus himself. Paul get's copies of these documents and takes them with him to the churches he visits. The tradition of these documents is cemented as being very early and they still get the witnessing by Paul of his conversion. How could this not but make the Christian case stronger?

I agree, there doesn't seem to be any indication in the NT that he knew. If I were a believer, I would see this as a problem. If Jesus and God are essentially different aspects of the same entity, and God knows all, how could Jesus have not have known at the very least that it would be quite some time before his return? I think the idea of a Jesus that thought the end was near is hard to reconcile with the idea of his divinity.

My question was not an "instead of", it was "in addition to". One could have the current gospels in addition to documents written by the man himself. If a good case could be made for a very early tradition in the Christian community for these documents being from the hand of Jesus, they would certainly have more credibility than the current gospels, but that doesn't mean it would make the current gospels irrelevant.

My only point with this was that not having the "I saw it" quality would not in any way belittle the content of documents written by Jesus containing his sayings and beliefs. Again, it's not an either/or question, one would have both a work from Jesus _and_ the gospels.

Well, it seems to me that if one claims, as the NT gospels do, that:

- a man was the most important person who ever lived
-that he was "divine" (whatever one means by that)
-that he is "the way, the truth and the light" and
-that he is the _only_ way to God

Then it seems pretty hard to reconcile this with the fact that he didn't know it would be thousands of years before his return and he also didn't think it was important enough to leave a written record of his teachings.

Perhaps "typical" was a little strong, but it seems like we are left to conclude that he was much like other religious leaders/teachers of his time, which isn't at all how the NT portrays him.

Radorth

Of course anything he might have written would have to be on a gold plate with some kind of irreproducible monogram. Not sure how God would then verify- maybe by flashing same in the sky? I really do not see how this idea is practical.

Personally I think a voice from heaven or God himself coming down to work a few miracles would be far more convincing to most skeptics, if it is indeed possible to convince them.

OTOH, he apparently did that, but there are no videos with voice print recognition to prove it. Maybe God just figured it really wouldn't matter who wrote it, and maybe having simple fishermen do some of it was (as Durant pointed out) a unique proof of its own. The Catholics claim to be able to demonstrate a chain of Popes back to Peter, but nobody except the faithful really believe it.

Jesus did say he could rasie people from the dead, and some would still not believe. Indeed they did not, and they don't. Skeptics can claim it would make a difference, but I suspect their demands for proof that such a writing was done by Christ would simply escalate. (I would be rather skeptical myself). I also suspect that is why God pays personal visits to anyone humbly seeking him and even people who hated him. Dumb fisherman and atheists who find out they were less intelligent than they thought actually make pretty good witnesses.

Supernatural happensings are probably the best proof, but since I believe he did all that for the Israelites and got zero ROI, maybe that doesn't work either. (Actually Jesus tells a parable about God's sundry and frustrating attempts to get folks to listen). I could understand why he might have said to Jesus: "Son I give up. Just go down and see what you can salvage. Die for them if you have to."

Rad

Kosh

Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar! And well within YHWH's abilities. A simply weekly status meeting with the world would do it. But no, it seems to be his will that we not be saved.

Skeptical: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />