Jesus Should Have Written

[sonofnietzsche]

This post makes a simple assertion: Jesus should have written down his thoughts, his creed, his instructions, etc.

The story is a good one. Something about the story of a fallen hero, a hero with supernatural ancestry, sent to earth to save the humans. The crushing, maiming and murdering of The Christ should fascinate, enthrall and inspire readers of any theistic or atheistic ilk.

Especially if you read the story all the way to the end. Too often, Hollywood portrays the moments after Christ's Resurrection as The End of The Story.

To do so leaves out the best part of the story...

Dr. HAHA Lung, author of assorted works on Mind Control and War Strategy, often reminds the reader: "Before Nietzsche, philosophy was only philosophy... after Nietzsche, philosophy became dangerous."

Throughout his career, Friedrich Nietzsche had much to say about Christianity.

But enough of Nietzsche. There will be plenty of time to discuss Nietzsche, and set the record straight.

For now, the simple assertion is that Jesus should have written down his thoughts. In fact, he should have kept a sort of life's journal.

Why?

Because, such a story of glory deserves to be told accurately. It should be told by the hero, by the man who bled and shed sweat and tears to climb up out of the abyss and rise with the light.

[JimJones8934]

I don't think Jesus was literate but even ignoring that, how would he be able to put his thoughts down if he died on the cross?

[MindTrap028]

I don't think Jesus was literate but even ignoring that, how would he be able to put his thoughts down if he died on the cross?

Spoiler alert (for those who haven't read the book)

He rises from the dead in the end.

For now, the simple assertion is that Jesus should have written down his thoughts. In fact, he should have kept a sort of life's journal.

I agree that it would be a good idea, but given that he worked himself to death, I don't think he had the time.

[JimJones8934]

Spoiler alert (for those who haven't read the book)

He rises from the dead in the end.

And how does that suddenly make him literate?

I agree that it would be a good idea, but given that he worked himself to death, I don't think he had the time.

Actually, he provoked the religious leaders of the time until they were forced to have him killed.

[Sigfried]

He did provoke them but no one makes anyone kill anyone else for the most part.

Literacy of Jesus is an interesting question. There are passages suggesting or outright claiming he can read and was well familiar with the Jewish scripture of the time.

I think in this day and age we find the idea of a teacher who does not write strange but then I think it was much more common for teachers to teach by speaking since most of those they were teaching were likely illiterate to some degree. A preacher wouldn't have all that much use of writing. Looking back though we can see how many advantages there would be if Jesus had written and ensured the preservation of such writings. (Apologists can certainly imagine many reasons why that might not be advantageous.)

Certainly were I the son of God I'd work to record some of my wisdom in a form somewhat less subject to the manipulation of others.

[MindTrap028]

And how does that suddenly make him literate?

You said ignore that..

Actually, he provoked the religious leaders of the time until they were forced to have him killed.

And he worked so hard at it.

[JimJones8934]

And he worked so hard at it.

I don't know, it doesn't seem to be too hard to provoke religious leaders. They tend to be a little sensitive when you make opposing claims.

[theophilus]

I don't think Jesus was literate

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.
(Luke 4:16 ESV)

This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.
(John 8:6-8 ESV)

Jesus was literate and certainly could have written down his teachings if he had chosen to do so. For some reason he simply chose not to do so.

[JimJones8934]

Hmmm. Now I know why religious debates go nowhere! Then I stand corrected and I'm with the OP - it's remarkable that a supposed deity's actual writing aren't preserved!

The "some reason he simply chose" excuse can easily be explained better that he didn't exist or couldn't write!

[Freund]

Why?

Because, such a story of glory deserves to be told accurately. It should be told by the hero, by the man who bled and shed sweat and tears to climb up out of the abyss and rise with the light.

This smuggles in the premise that the story wasn't told accurately, which places the burden on you to provide evidence / argumentation for that premise.

The "some reason he simply chose" excuse can easily be explained better that he didn't exist or couldn't write!

I think you meant to say "lazily" instead of "easily". "Better" is almost entirely dependent on how well you could argue that 1. He didn't exist or 2. He couldn't write. I think you might have an "easier" time with 2, but you're facing a steep challenge with 1.

[JimJones8934]

I think you meant to say "lazily" instead of "easily". "Better" is almost entirely dependent on how well you could argue that 1. He didn't exist or 2. He couldn't write. I think you might have an "easier" time with 2, but you're facing a steep challenge with 1.

Better means that it likely fits the available evidence. Which in the case of Jesus is quite barren given his supposed deity credentials. And if it is also true he was literate then it is even more unlikely he didn't write something down in a way that could have been preserved.

That all said, I don't really want to waste both our times debating something I frankly have no interest in researching further. I've seen these debates go around in circles by much better and motivated people than myself and the question of his existence is still not definitely answered.

So both sides are probably difficult to prove conclusively and each side depends on their personal beliefs. I, for one, don't really care whether he existed or not, I'm sure someone existed to kick everything off but his story has been exaggerated beyond all recognition. My real interests is how people translate their religions into moral actions.

Basically, the reason above was '... Because God' and that's usually where I stop - it is speculation and unprovable either way and does nothing to move understand the OP further. It is essentially, I don't know but there must be a reason I have no proof of. Why is there no proof? Very likely again. Jesus didn't exist in the way Christians believe he did: in both his literacy credentials and his actual existence.

So now we have to paths that lead to my original conclusion. So is there really anything to debate here?

[Squatch347]

Wouldn't the same criticism be true of Socrates or Aristotle?

[JimJones8934]

Wouldn't the same criticism be true of Socrates or Aristotle?

No, because there is no dispute regarding their existence. Presumably (I don't know) because there is corroborating evidence of them existing.

[Squatch347]

No, because there is no dispute regarding their existence. Presumably (I don't know) because there is corroborating evidence of them existing.

That is a large presumption. There is less evidence for Socrates or Aristotle directly than there is for Jesus. We have two independent, non-Christian sources for Jesus' existence that are contemporary to his life. We have four or five independent Christian sources for his life that range from AD 39 to AD 52. We have only one source for Socrates' life and none of that sources writings are directly from the source himself, but are copied versions in other works that have been pieced together.

To be honest JJ, there is far more discussion about whether or not Socrates actually existed than there is about whether or not Jesus did.

[JimJones8934]

That is a large presumption. There is less evidence for Socrates or Aristotle directly than there is for Jesus. We have two independent, non-Christian sources for Jesus' existence that are contemporary to his life. We have four or five independent Christian sources for his life that range from AD 39 to AD 52. We have only one source for Socrates' life and none of that sources writings are directly from the source himself, but are copied versions in other works that have been pieced together.

To be honest JJ, there is far more discussion about whether or not Socrates actually existed than there is about whether or not Jesus did.

Yet we have these bizarre claims of Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, coming back to life and all sorts of frankly extraordinary claims. So whilst I would not disagree with you there appears to be more evidence of Jesus than Socrates, the former's existence is tied with 'miracles' whereas the latter is tied to something more plausible: his thoughts.

[Squatch347]

Yet we have these bizarre claims of Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, coming back to life and all sorts of frankly extraordinary claims. So whilst I would not disagree with you there appears to be more evidence of Jesus than Socrates, the former's existence is tied with 'miracles' whereas the latter is tied to something more plausible: his thoughts.

None of which questions his existence. Socrates told of a mystical ancient city that possessed the power to change the weather (Atlantis). So we can set aside the question of whether or not the lack of autobiographical literature indicates that Jesus didn't exist (unless we are willing to through out quite a bit of history, Julius Ceaser not the least of which) and return to the OP's actual question.

Why didn't he write his version down?

There could be a plethora of reasons, all of which are, of course, our speculation.

It likely wouldn't have survived, since early direct accounts of events almost never appear in the ancient world.

That isn't how events were recorded in his life time. Virtually no work pre-1800 is a contemporary, direct account of an event. Rather, what was idealized from Herodotus onward was to act as more of a reporter. Even if the person saw the event first hand, it was considered far more interesting for that person to interview dozens of witnesses, synthesize the account and report it in a historical text (a la Herodotus or Tacitus). That is what Luke did, for example.


The above two points can be summarized as, "we shouldn't expect there to be autobiographical texts" it wasn't a genre that existed then. It is why we don't have similar texts from Aristotle, Crito, Pleny the Younger, or any other major thinker of the time. Take a look even at Machiavelli's works. He doesn't simply write out his thoughts from his experiences, he ransacks history to find an example then uses that to "deduce" a point. Simply writing out your philosophy simply wasn't a way you could communicate it historically.


This final reason is my personal suspicion though. Jesus was too busy doing to be writing. The accounts of Jesus are jam packed with travel or activity, he simply doesn't have the time to go about writing out his daily life (something that is virtually impossible at the time given the cost of materials). He has only two years to teach 13 people a completely different way of viewing their religion and the world. He has to spread a message and heal, not write and copy.

[MindTrap028]

I don't know, it doesn't seem to be too hard to provoke religious leaders. They tend to be a little sensitive when you make opposing claims.

Evidenced by all those recent Crucifixions.

Better means that it likely fits the available evidence. Which in the case of Jesus is quite barren given his supposed deity credentials. And if it is also true he was literate then it is even more unlikely he didn't write something down in a way that could have been preserved.

As to the "likely" issue, it is far more likely that he existed then not evidenced by the support of most scholors of history.
The assertion that he didn't exist is more in line with a conspiracy theorist then of honest history.

This final reason is my personal suspicion though. Jesus was too busy doing to be writing. The accounts of Jesus are jam packed with travel or activity, he simply doesn't have the time to go about writing out his daily life (something that is virtually impossible at the time given the cost of materials). He has only two years to teach 13 people a completely different way of viewing their religion and the world. He has to spread a message and heal, not write and copy.

There is also the issue with thinking that writing your ideas down should be a priority at all.
I mean, assuming jeasus didn't.. he managed to effect the world more than any other living human in history. So apparently he didn't need to write anything down to achieve what he desired.

Of course there is the issue of the moving goal posts. If Jesus had written why should I expect JJ to accept it any more readily then they accept the writing that we do have?

[JimJones8934]

None of which questions his existence. Socrates told of a mystical ancient city that possessed the power to change the weather (Atlantis).

That's not quite the same as claiming to be a deity and performing miracles is it? Did Socrates claim to have come from this place or visited it?

[Quote]

So we can set aside the question of whether or not the lack of autobiographical literature indicates that Jesus didn't exist (unless we are willing to through out quite a bit of history, Julius Ceaser not the least of which) and return to the OP's actual question.

You're still talking about the miracle worker right? You have evidence that Julius Caesar witnessed these miracles? I'd love to see that!

Until then, Jesus remains to be a fictionalization of perhaps a man that was influential.

Why didn't he write his version down?

There could be a plethora of reasons, all of which are, of course, our speculation.

It likely wouldn't have survived, since early direct accounts of events almost never appear in the ancient world.

But he's a deity - why could he not have taken that into account?

That isn't how events were recorded in his life time. Virtually no work pre-1800 is a contemporary, direct account of an event. Rather, what was idealized from Herodotus onward was to act as more of a reporter. Even if the person saw the event first hand, it was considered far more interesting for that person to interview dozens of witnesses, synthesize the account and report it in a historical text (a la Herodotus or Tacitus). That is what Luke did, for example.


The above two points can be summarized as, "we shouldn't expect there to be autobiographical texts" it wasn't a genre that existed then. It is why we don't have similar texts from Aristotle, Crito, Pleny the Younger, or any other major thinker of the time. Take a look even at Machiavelli's works. He doesn't simply write out his thoughts from his experiences, he ransacks history to find an example then uses that to "deduce" a point. Simply writing out your philosophy simply wasn't a way you could communicate it historically.

So basically, no direct evidence from Jesus himself could have existed because it just "wasn't done". Odd considering his claims to be a deity, he wouldn't choose a more direct method of communicating his wishes in an indisputable way. Considering how advanced his thinking was, preservation of his legacy didn't seem particularly from the perspective of a God!

This final reason is my personal suspicion though. Jesus was too busy doing to be writing. The accounts of Jesus are jam packed with travel or activity, he simply doesn't have the time to go about writing out his daily life (something that is virtually impossible at the time given the cost of materials). He has only two years to teach 13 people a completely different way of viewing their religion and the world. He has to spread a message and heal, not write and copy.

Goodness me! He was too busy to provide definitive proof using a common technology to preserve ideas! Sounds like he wasn't utilizing his time particularly effectively to me.

Besides, what's to stop him writing at night or weekends?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

Evidenced by all those recent Crucifixions.

By ISIS' leaders. Point made.

As to the "likely" issue, it is far more likely that he existed then not evidenced by the support of most scholors of history.
The assertion that he didn't exist is more in line with a conspiracy theorist then of honest history.

Hmm. I don't see anything in the history books about a man that performed miracles and resurrected. Are you referring to the Bible here as 'history'?

There is also the issue with thinking that writing your ideas down should be a priority at all.
I mean, assuming jeasus didn't.. he managed to effect the world more than any other living human in history. So apparently he didn't need to write anything down to achieve what he desired.

But you don't really know he said what is claimed of him. Mohammed, at least took the trouble to write things down, as have most leaders.

That you attribute everything to him is no guarantee that he said or did anything.

Of course there is the issue of the moving goal posts. If Jesus had written why should I expect JJ to accept it any more readily then they accept the writing that we do have?

There'd have to be a chain of custody of course but I don't dispute that Mohammed wrote what he wrote, that Joseph Smith did and so on.

Usually, if a leader existed and took the trouble to write something, I expect his followers to duplicate it and spread it far and wide. All we have is word of mouth and second hand accounts that are littered with impossible acts and extraordinary claims. Kinda makes the whole thing suspect.

[MindTrap028]

Hmm. I don't see anything in the history books about a man that performed miracles and resurrected. Are you referring to the Bible here as 'history'?

HAHA! That is funny.
Is It o.k. for me to assume that the history book you are referring to contained dates? Given that you have not named a history book at all, and are referencing ALL history books as far as I can tell.

[JimJones8934]

HAHA! That is funny.
Is It o.k. for me to assume that the history book you are referring to contained dates? Given that you have not named a history book at all, and are referencing ALL history books as far as I can tell.

So you are referring to the Bible as a history book? I don't think they necessarily have to contain dates since their historical context could be derived but I would think it helps to make a 'history' book more credible if it did contain dates.