Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Are you seriously contending that the Gospels don't mention Jesus by name??

Boru

Of course, they do!  But, none of them are written by anyone who knew Jesus personally; nowhere do they even claim that.

Dawn

Which has nothing to do with whether Jesus was literate.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Of course, they do!  But, none of them are written by anyone who knew Jesus personally; nowhere do they even claim that.

Dawn

Which has nothing to do with whether Jesus was literate.

Boru

As I said, it's an inference. If Jesus was literate, he would have been able to write things down; even if he knew someone else who was literate, that person could have written something down either for Jesus or about Jesus. Of the many thousands of literate individuals who were at least aware of Jesus' existence, no one even mentioned his name. Flavius Josephus, writing about the Roman & Jewish wars in the mid-70s, mentions Pontius Pilate but nowhere mentions Jesus; twenty years would pass before Josephus would, finally, make the first extra Biblical reference to Jesus, and even there, he was discussing James, Jesus' brother, finally mentioning, almost in passing, that "some believe him (Jesus) to be the Messiah". Clearly, Josephus was unimpressed by Jesus.

Again, if Jesus were literate, it is more probable that he, like Paul, would have written something down, and as with Paul's letters, it would have been likely that one of Jesus' followers would have preserved that document.

And, so, I do not believe that Jesus was literate, nor were any of those who were close to him.

Dawn

[Silver]

Given the time, Jesus' literacy isn't of much importance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jesus was working class. Looking down on those with less education than 20th century Westerners reeks of elitism.

[Silver]

Well, clearly, if you read the right books, you're better than everyone else.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Jesus was working class. Looking down on those with less education than 20th century Westerners reeks of elitism.

1. The living embodiment of an all-powerful all-knowing being with magic power was the "working class"?

2. There is nothing elitist about pointing out that people in other times were not as educated and thus their conclusions are likely not as reliable.

[Rev. Rye]

Which has nothing to do with whether Jesus was literate.

Boru

As I said, it's an inference. If Jesus was literate, he would have been able to write things down; even if he knew someone else who was literate, that person could have written something down either for Jesus or about Jesus. Of the many thousands of literate individuals who were at least aware of Jesus' existence, no one even mentioned his name. Flavius Josephus, writing about the Roman & Jewish wars in the mid-70s, mentions Pontius Pilate but nowhere mentions Jesus; twenty years would pass before Josephus would, finally, make the first extra Biblical reference to Jesus, and even there, he was discussing James, Jesus' brother, finally mentioning, almost in passing, that "some believe him (Jesus) to be the Messiah". Clearly, Josephus was unimpressed by Jesus.

Again, if Jesus were literate, it is more probable that he, like Paul, would have written something down, and as with Paul's letters, it would have been likely that one of Jesus' followers would have preserved that document.

And, so, I do not believe that Jesus was literate, nor were any of those who were close to him.

Dawn

Given that, when he was 12, he was able to not only hold his own with elder rabbis in a discussion on Jewish law, but impress them with the depth of his knowledge, it’s not too much of a stretch to guess that he was literate. Even if the Talmud wouldn’t be written down for a few more centuries. Not conclusive, but probable. I agree that the Apostles probably weren’t literate.

However, as for why Paul didn’t preserve any of Jesus’ writings, well, this clip from Last Temptation of Christ matches my understanding of Paul (though Jesus confronting him with his Satan loli is naturally an invention of Kazantzakis.)



Thinking about it with this in mind, especially given how little Paul actually talks about Jesus’ life in the epistles, it makes more sense that Jesus wouldn’t preserve any of Christ’s writings (if, indeed, his life as an itinerant rabbi afforded him much time to write): Jesus’ actual writings wouldn’t have meant much to him.

[Jehanne]

The story of Jesus in the Temple is a myth, the beginning of the infancy tales about him, such as the stories of him turning clay birds into real ones, bringing life to dried fish, miraculously stretching a piece of wood, etc.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The story of Jesus in the Temple is a myth, the beginning of the infancy tales about him, such as the stories of him turning clay birds into real ones, bringing life to dried fish, miraculously stretching a piece of wood, etc.

Yeah, you can’t really cite one myth (Jesus recruiting Simon and Andrew) that you think supports your position and reject a second myth (Jesus in the Temple) from the same source  that doesn’t. It’s like saying that Sam Gamgee cooking the rabbits is valid but his fight with Shelob isn’t.

Boru

[Jehanne]

The story of Jesus in the Temple is a myth, the beginning of the infancy tales about him, such as the stories of him turning clay birds into real ones, bringing life to dried fish, miraculously stretching a piece of wood, etc.

Yeah, you can’t really cite one myth (Jesus recruiting Simon and Andrew) that you think supports your position and reject a second myth (Jesus in the Temple) from the same source  that doesn’t. It’s like saying that Sam Gamgee cooking the rabbits is valid but his fight with Shelob isn’t.

Boru

They are from different sources, though. Luke borrowed (plagiarized) from Mark, which I cited from. To accept Luke's Temple account is to accept his Infancy narrative, Annunciation and all, and no one thinks that way.

Dawn