-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why was Jesus not educated...?
- Thread starter MW0082
- Start date
Paul was a known contemporary. He probably didn't know Jesus, but he did know Jesus' family. That alone is enough to determine historicity.
And how exactly can you determine that Socrates had contemporaries who knew him? After all, the sources are so vastly different. Will the real Socrates please stand up? How is it likely that, if Xenophan and Plato really knew him, they painted such different pictures of him? Not to mention Aristophanes (and we can't count Aristotle, he was just Plato's student). And furthermore, it isn't as if they were writing biographies. Plato has Socrates engaged in full dialogues for which Plato isn't present. And Aristophanes was writing plays, for crying out loud. So not only do our sources clearly disagree (which is strange, if they really knew Socrates), they aren't even histories!
When you look at all of history using the methodology of the mythicists, evidence for anything and everything quickly evaporates.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
OK, so we have this profile that an historical Jesus should fit might there be one, and then as we read of this Jesus in the gospels we discard information about the gospel Jesus that does not fit this profile. Is there a point to this exercise? What does it prove if anything? It seems like a backwards way of going about discovery, like chasing someone's foregone conclusion.
FBI agent talking, "Well, he doesn't fit the profile of the guy we're looking for, but if we discard the fact that he can read, and a few other details, he's our man."
Last edited:
Had you spent more time reading historical Jesus scholarship, you would know that this isn't how it is done. One starts with standard historical methods (criterion of multiple attestestation, criterion of coherence, etc) and uses these to examine the sources. The criteria are used to determine what is more likely to be true. For example, we know that miracles are, by definition, highly improbable. So we can safely conclude that the historical Jesus didn't walk on water. We also know, however, that throughout time various people have done things interpreted as magic and miracles, and have been historical, so this isn't precluded. It is also attested to independently in Josephus, Mark, and John. Such a figure would also cohere well within first century judaism. Hence, that Jesus was thought to cure the sick and cast out demons is highly likely.
In other words, you don't start with a sketch and then see what fits. You start with methodology.
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Humans by nature tell stories, it's a big part of who we are. Fairy tales and myths are a means of expressing truths about the human condition, and far more effective than simply rattling off a list of facts.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I was criticizing angellous evangicall's method, if you spent more time honing your comprehension skills you might have picked up on that.
Oh I did. But either you didn't understand what he said or don't care to actually address it. He was referring to a common criterion: once you establish something about a historical figure given particular methods, then what doesn't fit is likely not to be historical. It is clear from multiple attestation and other criteria that Jesus was a first century jew living in what is now palestine. So, as angellous said, what doesn't fit into this picture is a priori likely to be false.
What angellous did not say is "construct a historical Jesus then look at the sources."
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I think as far as biblically speaking it can be interpreted as a little of both. The biblical Jesus' message appears to be for the benefit of those whom he considered lost. It appears his message was directed at those in his day and time. He explicitly says this (Mark 15:24) but there are verses throughout the 4 gospels where he speaks of things that are set in the future that will happen.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Does this have to be another debate as whether the biblical or supposed 1st century Yeshua existed or not...? This thread starts out with the premise that he does.
Not really. At least not from the view of the member starting the thread:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I think that references to the gospels in this thread demonstrated that the Jesus of the gospels was educated, but the question as to why he didn't feel the need to write is difficult to answer. Aside from that, it appears someone or a number of people did write a collection of sayings referred to as Q.
Last edited:
Even if one accepted that Jesus could read and write, the fact that he likely did not would hardly be difficult to answer. He lived in a primarily oral culture where, even amongst the roman or greek elites, writing had been viewed with suspicion for centuries (at least as far as a valid way for transmitting truth) whereas oral transmission was a tried and true method for passing along one's message.
It is still unknown whether or not Q was ever written. See e.g. Jeremias, J. (1980). "Zur Hyothese einer schritlichen Logienquelle Q." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I think this has some weight to it. This has never really been a concern to me whether he wrote anything or not and I wouldn't expect him to have. If the "historical" Yeshua was on the move spreading his message from city to city and from isle to isle I wouldn't expect him to chronicle his journeys.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You would think that someone in his entourage would have felt the need to write his words down. Tradition has it that the gospels were written by disciples though not the case and considering the number of gospels as well as the numerous non canonical gospels, a lot of people felt the need to write things down, just not Jesus himself nor any one else while he was alive.
Last edited:
search the scriptures
Member
"Why was the son of god not educated? Or do you beleive he was?"
Job 36:22 Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?
Isa 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
"Also why did he not see or feel the need to record his teachings?"
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which isthe Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
he did.
Job 36:22 Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?
Isa 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
"Also why did he not see or feel the need to record his teachings?"
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which isthe Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
he did.
Why would they?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You would think that someone in his entourage would have felt the need to write his words down. Tradition has it that the gospels were written by disciples though not the case and considering the number of gospels as well as the numerous non canonical gospels, a lot of people felt the need to write things down, just not Jesus himself nor any one else while he was alive.
Yep this is why it's not surprising to me the "he" never wrote anything but does strike me as kind of odd that none of his contemporaries did.