Vanderzyden

Yes, he could have written, but the NT shows that writing is wholly irrelevant with respect to his unique mission.

A high level education is no justification for refusing to make appropriate concessions. I am also "well read". But there is far more for me to learn than I already know. What I take from your clarification here is that you are the quintessential skeptic, as your handle implies. However, you don't demonstrate conclusively that your skepticism is justified. You may be knowledgable, but you are not an expert in your areas of inquiry. Already, I have raised several issues concerning the Bible that you simply dismiss. Your categorical rejections of entire areas of potential knowledge ensure that you will believe what you prefer, instead of what is (sometimes painfully) true.

No, I see clearly from the gospels that his mission does not require writing. What shall I say to make this more clear to you? Even now, you still have done nothing to demonstrate that his mission, as it is related in the gospels, necessarily entails any writing whatsoever. In light of his critical mission, I have argued that for Jesus to take time to write would be non-sensical. You have not provided anything contrary that would indicate that his mission "clearly" requires that he write things down himself.

How so? Perhaps you missed where I explicitly addressed this issue in a previous post:

Please take a moment to seriously consider this passage, Skeptical. It goes a long way in providing you with an large component of the answer to your inquiry:

What do we read most clearly in this particular passage? Timing. Seclusion. Patience.

No, Eusebius is not the only author of early extra-canonical records. I have Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of The New Testmament", in which he catalogs the early "Apostolic Fathers":

-- Clement of Rome -- epistle written in 96 A.D.
-- Ignatius of Antioch -- seven epistles written near 110 A.D.
-- Polycarp of Smyrna -- two epistles, 110~135 A.D.

Metzger also considers many other sources in the second and third century, such as Theophilus (180 AD), Seraphon (200 AD), Dionysius (170 AD), etc. While these are not strictly historical works, they do contain records of high interest to NT and church history scholars. In light of your misunderstanding concerning "the first three hundred years", I would again ask that you drop Marcion. Really, he is not worth mentioning in this dialogue. Furthermore, I do not find any indication in Metzger that Eusebius was a supporter of Marcion. As you imply, Eusebius was a primarily a historian.

Note: If, prior to my mention of him here, you did not know who Metzger is, then I would say that you are most certainly not justified in making many of your assertions concerning the formation of the canon NT. Look him up on the web.

If you agree with me, then why do you insist that his writing would be helpful for you? That was your earlier position, was it not?

Yes, it is a matter of identification. Indeed. Many people also think of themselves as excellent drivers or great lovers. If I "call" myself a Christian, but do not follow Christ, there is a discrepancy. If I ignore what he said in critical areas, and align myself primarily with institutions, then I am not a genuine follower, but rather a pretender. People who want to have it "both ways"--following world leaders and identifying loosely with Jesus--will eventually find a way to circumvent a long list of regulations. They will do so more eagerly at the encouragement of influential mentors who seek selfish political gain.

Again, your attention is upon those claiming to be Christians. Most assuredly, they were not following Christ--not at that time, anyway. It would appear that you agree that Jesus words are universal and very clear (if not specific). If such people are outside the "category" of "following Jesus", and instead find themselves in the category "following hims so long as it is convenient", then excuses will be made for specific statements as they are for the universal ones.

Sentiments? On what basis do you categorize this amazing concept as mere sentiment? What is unclear about "loving your enemies"? This is most puzzling, Skeptical.


Why concern yourself with being a "christian"? This is simply a generic, ambiguous label. Perhaps instead you could seriously the reliability of the NT and consider the truth claims that Jesus makes concerning himself and the way the world really is.

Vanderzyden

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Skeptical

And you know that the NT picture of Jesus is complete how? Answer: You cannot without simply assuming it is. I covered this point already.

"Appropriate" is the key word.

When I dismiss points, I generally give an argument as to why they are dismissed. You imply that I just dismiss them out of hand which IMO is incorrect.

Give me one example of something I "categorically" reject without giving reasons for rejecting it.

You keep mentioning the "time" issue when you have already admitted that he had plenty of time to write if he wanted to. The fact that you keep bringing it up is what I find nonsensical. Additionally, I have already given you reasons why I think writing would be expected and I have also said (twice now) that without simply assuming that the picture from the NT is complete you cannot make claims about whether or not his mission would involve writing or not.

Yes, I noticed it. What part of "he could keep his writing secret" and "wisemen from the east bearing gold" weren't clear to you?


And what, again, does this have to do with whether or not Jesus could have wrote before he began his public ministry? Answer: nothing. Additionally, this seems to me to be another argument along the lines that writing was not part of his mission, which just seems to me to be an assumption. No where in the NT does Jesus say "I didn't come to leave writings". If he had wanted to leave writings he certainly could have done so and I have listed why I think such writing would have been important and why I would expect such writings to exist. I'm not going to repeat my arguments.

I didn't say he was, I said he the author of the only record of the first 300 hundred years, which is correct. I'm well aware of what other documents we have.

Really. Please tell me which of those other authors wrote a complete history of the early church the same way Eusebius did or in fact even came close to doing so.

I don't recall the reference to Eusebius' support, so I will go back and look it up. I don't think it was Metzger.

I'm well aware of who Bruce Metzger is. He is one of many NT scholars whose work I have consulted.

I think writings from Jesus himself would be helpful, but mostly I think they would have been helpful throughout the past 2,000 years, not necessarily to me personally.

Possibly, but since we don't have those specific utterances we'll never know will we. As I said, it might not have been 100% effective but I don't see how it could have hurt.

I'm not sure what you find so upsetting about the use of the word "sentiment". Perhaps you would like "statements" or "philosphy" better. Also, I didn't say that particular statement was unclear, I said I wish he had spelled out a few more things a little more clearly, many of which I have mentioned already. I really wish you would try to understand the context of my statements instead of jumping to conclusions.

I'm not concerned with it, that was just a shorthand way of saying "most of the statements attributed to Jesus are fine by me just the way most of the statements of many philosophers are fine by me. However, the evidence for miracles and resurrections is extraordinarily poor". So to answer your question, I have seriously examined the NT and I will refer you to the comments of David Hume regarding miracles and eye witnesses. If you not aware of what he said or who he was, you can look him up on the web.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Vanderzyden

No, I am not raising the simple issue of "time".

Repeatedly, I have distinguished the overall duration of his time on earth (~33 years), from timing. Let me make it very clear:

I am emphasizing TIMING.

Skeptical, I see that you are doing the same thing here as in the "non-natural" knowledge thread. Somehow, you are completely missing the main point. In the other thread, it is knowledge of the mind. Here, it is timing and opportunity. What else can be done to make it clearer to you?

Let me place this here again:

These are all good points, and yet you ignore them.

Summary:

1. He did not need to write, given his mission.
2. If he did write, he would need writing materials. The acquisition of writing materials and the act of writing would draw even more attention to himself.
3. If the NT is accurate concerning Jesus--who he is and why he came--then he knew that others would write for him.
4. The timing of his overt actions was crucial. He acted at precise opportunities.


Also, you now introduce the notion of the completeness of the NT. OK, fine. You tell me what is missing from it. I have already shown you that Jesus makes broad generalizations that cover every imaginable legalistic detail. So, you need to explain what else Jesus should have written, and in what persuasive form he should've written, so that you would be convinced that we have a complete picture of him. (I can imagine that, if we did possess his writings, you would insist that he left some things unwritten. Hah!)


Vanderzyden

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Skeptical

A distinction without a difference in the way you have used it. All you have said is that Jesus wanted to do things at the appropriate moment. This doesn't affect in any way whether he had an opportunity to write prior to his public ministry and then give those writings to his disciples at the appropriate "time".

In order for your line of argument to hold weight you would have to show that the NT shows specifically that Jesus did not have an opportunity to either do the writing in the first place or to reveal the writing at an appropriate time. It is agreed that he could have had the time and there is no reason I can think of that in principle would have excluded Jesus from revealing his writings (if he had written anything) at an appropriate moment.

No need, I answered it already your just ignoring it. ("as usual" I might add if you want to talk about who is missing points and who is ignoring arguments)

Considering, deciding they don't have merit and then giving arguments as to why they don't have merit is _not_ the same thing as "ignoring".

Again, you assume that you have a complete picture of what his mission was and that it did not involve writing. You cannot know that we have a complete picture, therefore, this argument does not hold.

The act of writing itself would not "draw attention", he could easily have kept his writings secret as I have said repeatedly. As far as acquiring the material I don't see why that would necessarily "draw attention". Priests certainly had access to writing as did merchants, so it couldn't have been that difficult to get.

He may very well have known or expected others to write for him, but if you had something vitally important to communicate, would you trust someone else or would you prefer to tell them yourself? Information is always better from the source.

And why couldn't one of his overt actions have been to divulge previously secret writings at the precise moment when he wanted? There is no reason he could not have revealed a collection of writings to his disciples at the last supper for example. If such an act were recorded and we had such a document, it would fit perfectly well with the existing picture we have, so this point doesn't hold.

Now, am I ignoring your points or am I addressing them and explaining why I disagree? (yes, that's a rhetorical question)

How many times do I have to give examples of statements from Jesus that it would be nice to have? 10? 20? I've answered this several times already.

Your conflating multiple issues. One issue is that it would be good to have a document from Jesus addressing specific points I have raised already. A different issue is what a "complete picture" of someone from writing means. A quick answer would be that any second hand writing by definition means that we cannot have a complete picture of someone. Even a document written by a biographer (which is not what the NT documents are) cannot possibly address all of the thoughts of a person on important topics. For a good presentation of an argument along these lines I again recommend you read Luke Timothy Johnsons "The real Jesus". (he's a theist if it matters to you and the book is very short and a quick read)

I might say that, but something would certainly be better than nothing and I certainly wouldn't have started this particular thread.

leonarde

No dark cloud....

Vanderzyden

I am not presuming that we have every last detail concerning Jesus life. However, it would seem that you are presuming that we do not have a fully sufficient "picture" of Jesus from the New Testament.

I am arguing that Jesus mission was so special that writing was absolute unnecessary. You have done little to meet this contention.

Also, you have said that more detailed regulations "would certainly be better than nothing". But I have argued at length toward the following conclusion:

Jesus' broad generalizations are fully sufficient to cover the entire human experience.

You have not produced any legitimate counterexamples to this statement. Instead, you complain about people who call themselves "Christian" but do not follow Christ in their behavior. I have said that I agree with this, but I still maintain that this is not a counterexample to Jesus general statements. The burden is upon you to provide a specific example of human behavior that is not covered by Jesus words.

Until you refute this point, I will consider that your inquiry has been addressed, whether you admit it or not.

Note: I have what I perceive is a three-part knock-down argument waiting for you in the "non-natural knowledge" thread. Please take the trouble to read it and provide at least a brief response.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

DivineOb

When Jesus gave the two most important commandments (love your neighbor as yourself and love the lord your god) he basically says that *that* is an exhaustive list of what one must do to carry out the christian god's commands. Do you feel that we do not significantly benefit from the further clarifications of these points which we do possess (for example, that lusting in one's heart is the same as committing adultery etc)? It seems to me that we do...

Baidarka

If Jesus was a violent anti-Roman revolutionary, as is likely, his writings would be filled with the type of anti-Roman invective which would spell doom to the developing Roman Church. The Church would have to suppress the words of the historical pro-Israel Jesus and concentrate on the theology of the invented, risen anti-Semitic Jesus.

1- His disciples carried weapons and knew how to use them. (see the capture of Jesus and the high priest’s servants ear)
2- The overturning of the money changers tables could not have been anything but a major violent demonstration. It is inconceivable that this action could have been pulled off with out the backing of many armed men.
3- His disciples had the nick names of tough fighting men.
Peter = Rocky Judas Iscariot = Sicari = Assassin or Knifeman
Simon Zelotes = Simon the Zealot (the zealots were a well know group of anti-Roman freedom fighters. Barnabus = son of Thunder
4- He states that he has not come to bring peace but to bring war.

leonarde

Previously posted: "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
and to God the things which are God's."

"He who lives by the sword shall perish by the
sword."

Cheers!

Vanderzyden

Yes, but the question at hand is: What value would his own writings add to his WORK?

Jesus made it clear that he was not a legalist. To emphasize the lack of first-hand writings is to invert the relatively trivial and the critically important. To do so is to risk overlooking who he is and instead focus on obtaining a comprehensive list of rules. Such diversions serve to paint Jesus as just one more "good teacher".

When considering Jesus, it is important to maintain proper context. Studying his life requires identification of his primary aims. It is reasonable, given his mission, to suggest that the reader place less emphasis on Jesus' exposition, and instead look for his summation of the Law. Certainly, it may be argued, that we ought not be greatly concerned about his extensions to the Law.

Vanderzyden

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>