Why did Jesus not write for us?

[marco]

We know Muhammad was illiterate which makes his production of the Koran close to miraculous. Jesus scribbled in the dust but does not seem to have occupied himself with writing things down. Why?

Here we debate what this or that means; we debate the Trinity; we wonder about the truth of Christ's nativity and resurrection; we question his message, as delivered by hearsay. An important group of people, those of the Jewish faith, has been alienated. Did Christ intend this? Did he want Rome to rise and propagate his message?


All these questions are answered in a book called The Annals of Christ, by Jesus Christ. Unfortunately we don't have it. Can there be good reasons why Christ left no written records?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Instead of bothering about the Evangelists and their fabrications (genealogy of Jesus - walking dead, angels in tombs....) it would be close to conclusive if we could consult Jesus on his birth, and his purpose on the Trinity and on what happens to Jews who die without accepting him.


We have the views of others and we debate ad nauseam since we have no definitive answers. It would seem that when it came to being tested Jesus was an escapologist. Like a politician he avoided direct answers - or so it seems in what reports we have.

[bjs]

Here we debate what this or that means; we debate the Trinity; we wonder about the truth of Christ's nativity and resurrection; we question his message, as delivered by hearsay. An important group of people, those of the Jewish faith, has been alienated. Did Christ intend this? Did he want Rome to rise and propagate his message?

It seems really, really unlikely that a book penned by Jesus himself would give us more information about these topics than we already have.

It seems even more unlikely that someone who rejects the Gospels we do have would suddenly be more accepting if we had a document written by Jesus.

It also seems unlikely that such people would accept that Jesus really was the author of that book, even if it the document claimed it was so. We have stronger evidence to support that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name than we do for the authorship of most historical documents, but many people are quick to dismiss Marks authorship.

The fact that Jesus did not write his own book could contain a theological lesson about discipleship, but I doubt that it make any practical difference for those who do not accept the existing written accounts.

[Willum]

Did he want Rome to rise and propagate his message?

Among the gems in this topic, this one stood out:

Why didn't he have his jewel, Israel rise to propagate his message?
Why Rome?

Well, I think we all know my thoughts on that, and this is just another point of evidence about those.
Rome created a weapon of information warfare, they taught those who taught those who believed it.

It turned on them.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Instead of bothering about the Evangelists and their fabrications (genealogy of Jesus - walking dead, angels in tombs....) it would be close to conclusive if we could consult Jesus on his birth, and his purpose on the Trinity and on what happens to Jews who die without accepting him.


We have the views of others and we debate ad nauseam since we have no definitive answers. It would seem that when it came to being tested Jesus was an escapologist. Like a politician he avoided direct answers - or so it seems in what reports we have.

Considering the confusion and disagreement we face in trying to comprehend Jesus' message, it's odd that he hasn't produce an addendum. He is reportedly still alive in spite of his much publicized death. Given that, why doesn't he give us a bit of help.

It wouldn't have to include much. Just the highlights. Starting with, what does it actually take to get to heaven. Neither he nor his billions of followers have yet provided a clear answer. You'd think that'd be a priority.

I'm sure his personal assistant could type something up in short order.


Tcg

[marco]

Here we debate what this or that means; we debate the Trinity; we wonder about the truth of Christ's nativity and resurrection; we question his message, as delivered by hearsay. An important group of people, those of the Jewish faith, has been alienated. Did Christ intend this? Did he want Rome to rise and propagate his message?

It seems really, really unlikely that a book penned by Jesus himself would give us more information about these topics than we already have.

It seems even more unlikely that someone who rejects the Gospels we do have would suddenly be more accepting if we had a document written by Jesus.

It also seems unlikely that such people would accept that Jesus really was the author of that book, even if it the document claimed it was so. We have stronger evidence to support that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name than we do for the authorship of most historical documents, but many people are quick to dismiss Marks authorship.

The fact that Jesus did not write his own book could contain a theological lesson about discipleship, but I doubt that it make any practical difference for those who do not accept the existing written accounts.

The gospels are rejected because they are written by ordinary men, prone to ridiculous exaggeration. There is enough ambiguity in the gospels for debates to go on and for different groups to believe in a variety of theologies. This is the fault of the authors.

Yes, if Jesus wrote then there would be as much dispute as there is about Caesar writing of his exploits in Gaul or about Cicero's speeches. But the corpus of opinion would accept the author; the content and manner of expression would confirm it. However, if there were many errors and exaggerations, one might conclude Jesus did write the work but he wasn't who he thought he was. In other words we could examine at first hand the claims made by people about Jesus. We would look for the words: "I am God" rather than "Who do you think I am?"

The theological lesson about discipleship seems to be that when one believes, one uses one's imagination too freely, as with Matthew and the risen corpses. Jesus would, presumably, tell us exactly as it is. Such a pity he didn't. One wonders why.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Do all great men write their own biographies? Did Buddah write his teachings?

[marco]

Did he want Rome to rise and propagate his message?

Among the gems in this topic, this one stood out:

Why didn't he have his jewel, Israel rise to propagate his message?
Why Rome?

Well, I think we all know my thoughts on that, and this is just another point of evidence about those.
Rome created a weapon of information warfare, they taught those who taught those who believed it.

It turned on them.

As an admirer of things Roman I'm not in complete accord with the theory the Romans were behind Christ. It's not impossible: they were masters of intrigue. But I would expect the pax Romana to be praised more by Jesus. You would hardly know Rome existed, apart from the grudging reference to giving Caesar his due. I would also expect some slight nudges towards the religion of Rome.

But on the positive side, if he was an agent, then it would have been inappropriate for him to write; those he beguiled would do so.

My view is that he did not wish to commit himself to later scrutiny. The spoken word is committed to the air but the written word to history.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Do all great men write their own biographies? Did Buddah write his teachings?

Was Jesus nothing more than a great man?

Would the biography of Ernest Hemmingway carry the same weight as that of Jesus?

Are people refused admission into heaven if they misunderstand Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings?


Tcg

[marco]

Considering the confusion and disagreement we face in trying to comprehend Jesus' message, it's odd that he hasn't produce an addendum. He is reportedly still alive in spite of his much publicized death. Given that, why doesn't he give us a bit of help.

You forget he is busy "preparing a place" in his father's house. It seems the task is like cleaning the Augean stables.

It wouldn't have to include much. Just the highlights. Starting with, what does it actually take to get to heaven. Neither he nor his billions of followers have yet provided a clear answer. You'd think that'd be a priority.

I'm sure his personal assistant could type something up in short order.

No typing necessary for a man who walks on water. Nor does the moving finger write.... he simply declares the book exists and it does. Chapter headings: "The Truth about Adam" ; "How to Cure Leprosy"; "Raising the Dead" "One God or Three?" "The Point of it All."

I'd like to read the chapter beginning: "When I was just 11, I got lost and know what?...."

It might even outsell the Koran. Come to think of it, there might not have been a Koran if Jesus had produced a book under his own signature. Who would need another prophet?