Could Jesus Read

[Qumran]

Why? Would you run down to the closest Christian Church and "sign up"?
I think not...

So you won't answer my question because I won't convert to Christianity?

.... if you don't respect/believe the men who wrote Scripture or the men who defined the Canon of Scripture, then why in the world would what was IN the Bible make any difference at all to you?

No, quite the opposite, I asked for specific scriptures because I DO respect them. And it DOES make a difference to me. YOUR personal statements that YOU believe Jesus is GOD don't carry the same weight and authority as a Biblical quote.

So, with respect for your views and the Bible as well, I will ask again:

Please cite scriptures where Jesus directly states that he is God. If you have trouble with that one, then please be so good as to cite scriptures where his Apostles or disciples state clearly and directly that "Jesus is God" - mind you, not scriptures that can be interpreted vaguely or merely suggest Jesus' divine nature. Show me scriptures that say " Jesus is God" or "I am God" or something to that effect.. with God and Jesus - Jesus mentioned BY NAME - in the same sentence.

Perhaps you are taking this post as an attack on you or your faith. Please understand that it is not. You can even private message me with the answers and we can diologue in private - I AM NOT TRYING TO EMBARASS YOU IN PUBLIC FORUM.

Just to let you know, I think you will discover that such a scripture simply does not exist - unless it is in the apocrypha - (I am ignorant of the apocryphal cannon.)

 

[linwood]

For the most part I`m in agreement with you but for this statement.

That said, what you originally said is that if I believe in Jesus, then I believe it on the basis of scripture and nothing else. And therefore if scripture says that Jesus could read then I must believe he could read. I dispute that.

The only historical evidence of this particular Jesus existing is the New Testament.
For me personally once I`ve encountered a contrary statement in any historical record the entire thing is untrustworthy and I cannot base an objectve opinion on it.
The mere fact that you correctly state it was unlikely that Jesus could read and write considering his social/cultural standing while the Bible states otherwise is enough for me to be highly doubtful about anything written of him in the New Testament.

I would need some type of objective standard to positively believe he existed at all.
Otherwise I`d just be cherry picking properties for an entity that didn`t logically exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please cite scriptures where Jesus directly states that he is God.

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

[martha]

Linwood, maybe I missed it in one of your previous posts. Why would you say that logically, Jesus didn't exist?



We know of Jesus from ancient writings. These writings were an extension of verbal stories, history as it were. Who is to say that there wasn't a man who came among them who was compassionate beyond reasonable standards? Who is to say that there wasn't a man who prayed for and had healings occur because of that loving prayer. There are many studies that prove, to my mind, that prayer makes a great difference in some situations.
Why would you deny the existence of Jesus, and the stories that are told of him? Do you truly believe it to be myth?
No offence luv, just more curiosity.

 

[lilithu]

The only historical evidence of this particular Jesus existing is the New Testament.
For me personally once I`ve encountered a contrary statement in any historical record the entire thing is untrustworthy and I cannot base an objectve opinion on it.
The mere fact that you correctly state it was unlikely that Jesus could read and write considering his social/cultural standing while the Bible states otherwise is enough for me to be highly doubtful about anything written of him in the New Testament.

I would need some type of objective standard to positively believe he existed at all.
Otherwise I`d just be cherry picking properties for an entity that didn`t logically exist.

Personally, I feel like that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because there is reason to believe that something is not completely right does not mean that it's completely wrong. I do not feel like I'm picking randomly tho I will concede that more than likely I have made mistakes due to my biases. However, as far off as I may be while trying to sort out fact from fiction, that can't be any more far off than you are by saying that it's all fiction. Just because you're more consistent in how you filter doesn't make you more right.

That said, I obviously can't prove that Jesus really existed and feel no need to. For me personally, because the teachings attributed to him are so much a part of my sense of ethics, it just makes a lot more sense to believe they came from him, rather than always keeping in mind that he may never have existed. Again, they had to come from somewhere. The same goes for Lao-Tse and the Tao te Ching. The teachings themselves are what's most important to me. If Jesus' teachings are not important to you, then of course there is no reason to believe in him and he is no more than a superfluous premise.

General question to whoever wants to answer: Is there corroborating evidence, outside of Buddhist scriptures, that the Buddha really existed? If so, what is it? If not, why don't people care about that question as much as they seem to care about Jesus' existence? Why don't all the miracles attributed to the Buddha in Buddhist scriptures call into question his existence?

 

[linwood]

Personally, I feel like that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps but when the baby is invisible, silent, and weightless can I really be blamed for tossing him?

Just because there is reason to believe that something is not completely right does not mean that it's completely wrong.

Please don`t misunderstand me I don`t think the Bible is "wrong" at all.
I just believe it is over greatly irrelevant and emphasized in my culture and grossly misunderstood by those who do the over emphasizing.

Just because you're more consistent in how you filter doesn't make you more right.

Agreed, but that undermines the parsimony argument in your previous post.

If Jesus' teachings are not important to you, then of course there is no reason to believe in him and he is no more than a superfluous premise.

Jesus` teachings are important to me.
I merely see no reason to believe Jesus in all the different incarnations he is presented was actually the one teaching them.
I won`t argue that he wasn`t either, I simply do not know and because I do not know I cannot say.
It is because of the presentation of his supposed teachings that I am inclined to toss that baby out with the bathwater.
I cannot tell if there is really a baby in all that muck.

However we are straying waaay off topic.

I`ll simply say I prefer to gain my insight from identifiable causes and not have to struggle to determine what is fact and what is fiction before I am even able to weigh a fact.
Especially because there are potentially dire consequences if I determine incorrectly.

EDIT:
However concerning the Op.
I agree with you from your position.
If you believe Jesus was a historical figure that Biblical scripture at times misrepresents then in the cultural context he lived in it is most probable he could not read or write.
However if you do indeed believe in Biblical inerrancy (and many many do) you must believe he could read and write.

 

[Qumran]

What does this have to do with the topic?

The topic is, 'could Jesus read?' Another post said Jesus is God. Since it is plain that God can read, evidently this person feels that by saying Jesus is God it also proves he could read. (IMO Jesus COULD read) My response to the earlier post is that while Jesus may, indeed, be God, there is no scripture that says this plainly and directly.

Maybe he thinks I dispute the divinity of Jesus. I have made no comment on that question either way. At this point I neither confirm nor dispute it.

Bottom line: I wish we could get back on topic to!! :banghead3

 

[lilithu]

EDIT:
However concerning the Op.
I agree with you from your position.
If you believe Jesus was a historical figure that Biblical scripture at times misrepresents then in the cultural context he lived in it is most probable he could not read or write.
However if you do indeed believe in Biblical inerrancy (and many many do) you must believe he could read and write.

Agreed.

And I pretty much agree with the rest of your post too, except the parsimony part. But after looking at dictionary.com, I think that might be because we're using two different definitions of parsimony.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Why? Would you run down to the closest Christian Church and "sign up"? I think not... if you don't respect/believe the men who wrote Scripture or the men who defined the Canon of Scripture, then why in the world would what was IN the Bible make any difference at all to you?
Amen.:tsk:

One or more of the following apply.:bounce
Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right." The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person arguing. For example:

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

"... In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?"

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."​

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."​

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."​

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."​

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."​

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"​

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"​

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

​

 

[Popeyesays]

In Jesus time the oral tradition was still strong.
A few like Paul could certainly read and write.
We hear of Jesus speaking and debating in the temple, and using the oral tradition in other ways, But are there any even ambiguous evidences that he could write.


Terry
__________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Jesus is referred to repeatedly by the title "Rabbi" in the Gospels. Rabbis then were much as they are now - scholars and teachers, not priests.

However, can one imagine a Rabbi who cannot read?

Regards,
Scott