Why do we have no writings from Jesus?

[Jagella]

I think almost all of us can agree that the writer of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul, existed. Obviously a person needs to exist to write an epistle. So if we understand "Paul" to be the person who wrote Romans, then Paul's historicity is assured. (There are historical problems regarding the details of Paul's life, but that's another issue.)

Unfortunately, we have no such luxury with Jesus because we have nothing he may have written. Real-Jesus apologists explain away this lack of evidence telling us that Jesus, like many other people, could have existed without writing anything. And neither should we expect Jesus to have written anything because he was an illiterate country bumpkin, after all. Besides, Jesus believed the world would soon end, so who needs anything written down for posterity?

I disagree with this reasoning. For starters, explaining why we have nothing written by Jesus isn't evidence. It's just an attempted explanation for why we have no such evidence.

Another objection I might raise is that the Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospel tale is no dummy. He was very erudite and a first-class communicator. He could have been literate and able to write, and if he was illiterate, then he could have recruited a literate disciple to write down what he said.

Finally, Jesus believing that the world would end soon is not necessarily a good reason for his not having anything written down. It wouldn't take that long to commit his ideas to written form. And soon after the time Jesus presumably lived, Paul got busy writing about Jesus. A few decades later more Christians wrote of Jesus in the many gospels. So if these Christians saw the necessity for writing about Jesus even though they believed the apocalypse was near, then it's a mystery that Jesus didn't bother to commit anything to writing.

Question for Debate: Why do we have no writings from Jesus?

[tam]

Peace to you,

But I would need much more than guesswork if someone expects me to simply accept that an author of a book lied about their identity. To overturn the self-identified author, there would need to be some real evidence that this was fraud (pious or otherwise).

If an author self-identified as Vladimir Putin or Pat Robertson would you believe them unless 'real evidence' was presented to the contrary? Or might you be a bit suspicious?

That would depend upon the book (or letter) and its contents. And if the contents do not match up with what we know of that person, then that would be cause for suspicion (although people and their views can change).

Speaking of suspicious; The Gospel of John was considered by theologians and scholars to have been written LONG after the presumed death of Jesus (perhaps 50 years or more) -- and --

Yes, but their evidence needs to be examined because that is not conclusive. Their methods are not an exact science and there is room for error. I'd previously thought they must have something concrete upon which to base their conclusions, but that does not seem to be the case. Nor can they possibly take all the factors from two thousand years ago into consideration.


Even so, that time frame is still within the timeline of an apostle/eyewitness.

Didn't the author claim to be ‘the Beloved Disciple’ (which is open to speculation) rather than identifying as John?

Yes. Mind you, I have not suggested that the actual author is John. That might be a commonly accepted tradition, but that does not make it true.

The author does not name himself as anyone other than "the disciple Christ loved". But the "disciple Christ loved" is identified in the gospel as being one of the twelve apostles, present at the last supper, and therefore, an eyewitness.


Peace again to you!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 61 by tam]

That would depend upon the book (or letter) and its contents. And if the contents do not match up with what we know of that person, then that would be cause for suspicion (although people and their views can change).

Now apply that to the Book of Revelation. What do we know about its author, that we already know prior to picking up that book? Who is the author?

[Jagella]

Jesus either did not write any documents, or any documents he wrote have not survived to this day.

I can think of at least two problems raised by what you're saying here. First, it's strange that Jesus never bothered to write anything down or saw to it that one of his literate followers wrote what he said. He reputedly was a preacher who saw his message as vital to his efforts to proclaim what he called "the Kingdom of God." He no doubt would know that sacred writings were indispensable to letting people know of the law and the prophets. Why would he then neglect his own writings?

Another issue raised is that of the disciples losing anything he wrote. It seems unlikely that they would not preserve what Jesus either wrote himself or dictated to a scribe. Much of what other Christians had to say was preserved, so why not what Jesus wrote?

Any conclusions beyond that would be an extreme example of the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

Actually, what you're saying here is a fallacy. Your mistake in logic is to limit the possibilities to two when there are other plausible explanations regarding why we have no writings from Jesus. One such possibility is that there never was a Jesus to write anything.

[PinSeeker]

Question for Debate: Why do we have no writings from Jesus?

Because His was primarily a ministry of deed. He even said as much when He quoted Isaiah 61 in his first real public appearing; basically, "this is why I am here." Greater love has no man than he who lays his life down for his friends.

That plus the fact that it is more effective and more credible for others -- and in the case of Jesus many others, both before and after His life on this planet -- to write about you and what you did rather than to write about yourself.

[tam]

[Replying to post 61 by tam]

That would depend upon the book (or letter) and its contents. And if the contents do not match up with what we know of that person, then that would be cause for suspicion (although people and their views can change).

Now apply that to the Book of Revelation. What do we know about its author, that we already know prior to picking up that book? Who is the author?

Apply it how to the book of revelation, Rik? What do you know about the author that is contradicted by the content of the book of revelation?

What evidence do you have to suspect the named author lied about his identity?



Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

"Good reason" is quite subjective, though, is it not?

Yes, of course, I am a "subject," and I need to rely on what seems to me to be good reason. I do hope you don't expect me to go on what doesn't seem like good reason to believe a document was written by Jesus.

Hey, you're the one saying that having letters written by Christ would be good evidence that He existed.

Even though there is already good evidence that He existed.

In any case, it is often difficult to judge what really happened two thousand years ago among a secluded religious sect in Israel.

Sure.

It's the nature of Christology to try to come to the most likely conclusions on such weak evidence.

I do not know what that is supposed to mean.

We have good reason to believe that the fourth gospel is written by an eyewitness (and one of the twelve apostles) - the disciple Christ loved - because the author states that he is that person.

Can you please cite the passage in which John the apostle identifies himself as the writer of the fourth gospel?

Why would I do that? I never claimed that the writer of the fourth gospel identifies himself as John the apostle. The author identifies as "the disciple Christ loved", and that disciple is shown to be one of the twelve, present at the last supper, and therefore, an eyewitness.

We have good reason to believe that Revelation is written by John (of Patmos) because the author identifies himself AS John (of Patmos). Yet Rikuamero in this very thread has said...

I can only speak for myself, but I do accept that this "John of Patmos" was indeed the author of Revelation. I don't know much about him other than that he is the author, though. So his identifying himself isn't very helpful if we know nothing else about him.

His identifying himself isn't very helpful with what?

Christ did not say that His sheep would listen to letters that He has written. He said His sheep would listen to His voice.

Well, I think you may be interpreting "voice" too narrowly. The Greek word φωνῆς translated "voice" in passages like John 10:27 is translated "sound" or "rumor" in Acts 2:6. So "voice" is probably referring to anything Jesus is supposed to have said either orally, or by rumor, or by writing.

The greek word is "phone" (interesting in itself; I like seeing the way language develops).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5456&t=KJV

The word does not mean rumor; and I see no instance where it is translated as writing. 131X it is translated as voice, 8X as sound, 1X as noise; and 1X as noised abroad (here at Acts 2:6). It is equally obvious that Acts is referring to a sound, an immediate sound that people heard and therefore gathered together because of the sound.

And when this sound rang out, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking his own language. Acts 2:6

https://biblehub.com/acts/2-6.htm


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

If we interpret "voice" the way you do, then nobody having read the gospel could be said to have heard the voice of Jesus--only those who were actually there to listen to him.

Oh, and people like you who still hear the voice of Christ even today.

Yes, though one may also hear His voice (and truth) while reading His words (more like He is reading to that one, so that one hears Him - in the spirit).

So those with faith (His sheep) have no need for such a document. We have Him and the spirit He has given us.

So you don't bother reading the New Testament?

I have read the NT.

But I am not sure what your point is. You claim that letters from Christ are needed, and yet that is not so. If it were so, then no one would have faith in Him without them. But this is not so.

How would you know something like that without hearing from Him, yourself?

Well, hearing from Jesus would be very convenient, but unlike you I do not have that luxury.

Replace the word luxury with the word faith. Faith is something you could ask for (and keep asking, keep knocking), if you truly wanted it.

...why would those men who made up that fiction not have gone all the way and also written letters, claiming them to be from Christ?

They did write such a letter! See THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA.

[/quote]

And where is your evidence that the apostles (including Paul) wrote that letter? Because those are the people I am referring to, the ones who are being accused of 'creating Christ'; the ones being accused of having made the whole thing up as fiction (pious or otherwise).


Second, there is not much information in your link. So how are you so sure that it is a forgery?


(I am not saying it is authentic; I am just curious why you are saying it is a forgery)



Peace again to you.

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: Why do we have no writings from Jesus?

Because His was primarily a ministry of deed.

According to the gospel tale, the "Word of God" surely lived up to his name. He did tons of yacking arguing with those who didn't believe him and warning all of us that if we didn't believe him we would go to hell. So I must disagree that his ministry was mostly that of deeds. He was a more a preacher than a doer.

He even said as much when He quoted Isaiah 61 in his first real public appearing; basically, "this is why I am here." Greater love has no man than he who lays his life down for his friends.

Well, Jesus getting himself crucified was one deed. He talked about that deed very much.

That plus the fact that it is more effective and more credible for others -- and in the case of Jesus many others, both before and after His life on this planet -- to write about you and what you did rather than to write about yourself.

So if you had a choice, you would take a document written about Jesus over one written by him? I find that hard to believe.

[Jagella]

Even though there is already good evidence that He existed.

If I knew Christ still spoke to people today, then I would have to agree with you.

I do not know what that is supposed to mean.

I mean when we study Christ (i.e. "Christology") it is difficult to come to solid conclusions because the evidence for Christ is so weak. All the evidence we have for Christ are stories many of which are contradictory and/or forgeries.

Why would I do that? I never claimed that the writer of the fourth gospel identifies himself as John the apostle. The author identifies as "the disciple Christ loved", and that disciple is shown to be one of the twelve, present at the last supper, and therefore, an eyewitness.

Since you are either unable or unwilling to cite that passage, then I must conclude that there is no such passage. We do not know who wrote John or any of the other gospels.

His identifying himself isn't very helpful with what?

"John of Patmos" tells us nothing about himself other than the location of his bizarre vision. So we know almost nothing about him. It's like what you know about me. All you know is that I'm some guy who calls himself "Jagella" who frequents this forum to educate and correct the Christians here. Aside from that, I'm a mystery. John of Patmos is also such a mystery.

The greek word is "phone"

LOL--Tam, there is no Greek word "phone." But I think you may be referring to the pronunciation. φωνῆς is pronounced "phone-ace" with the accent on the second syllable.

The word does not mean rumor...

The INT translates φωνῆς as "rumor" in Acts 2:6.

So you don't bother reading the New Testament?

I have read the NT.

But I am not sure what your point is.

I'm just wondering why you say you need no document yet read the documents of the New Testament.

Faith is something you could ask for (and keep asking, keep knocking), if you truly wanted it.

When I was a Christian I asked for faith and much else. No luck!

And where is your evidence that the apostles (including Paul) wrote that letter?

Nobody knows who wrote THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA, but it's supposed to be Christ and Abgarus.

Second, there is not much information in your link. So how are you so sure that it is a forgery?

That epistle probably is a forgery although a very old one. It's one of the reasons I find Christ's historicity doubtful. Where is the real evidence for a real Christ amidst all this forgery?

[PinSeeker]

So I must disagree that his ministry was mostly that of deeds. He was a more a preacher than a doer.

Nah, He was much more a doer. Sure, He talked about the Kingdom, and He certainly did some preachin' -- but it was mostly works. Feeding the 5,000, calming the wind and the waves, turning the water to wine, fulfilling every jot and tittle of the Law... and on and on. And He laid His life down (and took it up again) to complete His work. Deeds far outweighed His words.

Well, Jesus getting himself crucified was one deed.

Well, of course, God made all that happen, but that was certainly the pièce de résistance, for sure.

So if you had a choice, you would take a document written about Jesus over one written by him? I find that hard to believe.

Six one way and half a dozen the other, really. Faith is the gift of God and the work of the Spirit, and I suppose it could have been done either way.

[Jagella]

Well, Jesus getting himself crucified was one deed.

Well, of course, God made all that happen, but that was certainly the pièce de résistance, for sure.

You call a father ordering his son to die "pièce de résistance"? It's no wonder Christianity has resulted in so much violence and death. What you've posted here is proof that Christian beliefs inspire killing.

So if you had a choice, you would take a document written about Jesus over one written by him? I find that hard to believe.

Six one way and half a dozen the other, really. Faith is the gift of God and the work of the Spirit, and I suppose it could have been done either way.

OK, so you do want documents written by Jesus. Sorry, but there are none. It's unlikely that a real Jesus wouldn't bother doing his own writing, but a mythical Christ explains the situation perfectly.