Why did Christ write nothing down?

[marco]

In John 8:8 we find Jesus actually writing, albeit in the sand. This may be significant, since time has erased his words. But time has not erased the words of Plato or Cicero.

The question is: Why did Christ write nothing down for later inspection?

Is his refusal to do so of any significance?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

No I don't think so, his ministry was reletively short, under four years, conducting at least seven tours which combined covered the entire country at least three times... If there is anything significant in his not taking time out to write what he was doing it would be, I believe, that it was a testimony to the confidence he had in his disciples to compile a true and accurate account of events.


Personal opinion,


JW

[marco]

No I don't think so, his ministry was reletively short, under four years, conducting at least seven tours which combined covered the entire country at least three times..

And a man walking round a country in three years is construed as the best of divine communication to the whole world?

If there is anything significant in his not taking time out to write what he was doing it would be, I believe, that it was a testimony to the confidence he had in his disciples to compile a true and accurate account of events.

Many would agree with you, but when we examine the fruit we must condemn the tree, for his chosen secretaries have left us with inconsistencies and a variety of interpretations so that, even among those who recognise Christ, there are enough differences to cause wars.

I would modestly suggest he could have done better by writing his ideas down. As for fine judgement, he gave us Judas.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

If there is anything significant in his not taking time out to write what he was doing it would be, I believe, that it was a testimony to the confidence he had in his disciples to compile a true and accurate account of events.

Are these the same disciples who, when told directly by Jesus who would betray him, do nothing and let Judas leave the room, and act confused as to what the bag of money he had on him was for?

John 13
After saying these things, Jesus became troubled in spirit, and he bore witness, saying: “Most truly I say to you, one of you will betray me.�+ 22 The disciples began to look at one another, being at a loss as to which one he was talking about.+ 23 One of the disciples, the one whom Jesus loved,+ was reclining close to* Jesus. 24 Therefore, Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell us whom he is talking about.� 25 So the latter leaned back on the chest of Jesus and said to him: “Lord, who is it?�+ 26 Jesus answered: “It is the one to whom I will give the piece of bread that I dip.�+ So after dipping the bread, he took it and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Is·carʹi·ot. 27 After Judas took the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him.+ So Jesus said to him: “What you are doing, do it more quickly.� 28 However, none of those reclining at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some, in fact, were thinking that since Judas was holding the money box,+ Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival,� or that he should give something to the poor. 30 So after he received the piece of bread, he went out immediately. And it was night.+

Truly they were the finest minds of their generation...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

It was typical for a Jewish Rabbis to teach verbally and for his disciples to write down the material. Nothing unusual here at all. The written word was valued less than the spoken in antiquity.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by liamconnor]

So, since the human memory is completely unreliable, will fill in gaps, vainglorious, and worse, it should be pretty typical you shouldn't believe anything they didn't write down. Right?

Then when you consider that Hebrew is a twice dead language, well the entire thing becomes preposterous, doesn't it?

But we now have two conflicting stories, one is that the OT was finally constructed from fragments of originals, and then there is the idea that Rabbis are magical people with magic memories, unchanging minds and a direct line to God.

Is that what you are asking us to believe? How cn you be so unconscionable as to ask us to believe that? with our immortal souls at stake, too?

I rather think it was constructed from the fragments of other peoples stories, myths and fables myself, but only because those stories pre-dated anything any Rabbi can be shown to have memorized.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

We should also comment that considering the silence as stemming from Jesus' "refusal" to write anything down is highly speculative. It was probably simply part and parcel of the time--he was a teacher with students.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco!

In John 8:8 we find Jesus actually writing, albeit in the sand. This may be significant, since time has erased his words. But time has not erased the words of Plato or Cicero.

The question is: Why did Christ write nothing down for later inspection?

Is his refusal to do so of any significance?

I can think of multiple reasons why He would not have written anything down.


- Some people would have used his writings as a weapon against their fellow man (which is what many have used even the bible to do); and gain followers after themselves.

- We are supposed to be walking by FAITH, and not by SIGHT. (faith being based upon what is HEARD - such as how Abraham heard God and believed Him, etc; that was FAITH)

- He knew that the law (of love) would be written upon the hearts of those who were in the new covenant

- He knew that He had no NEED to write anything down; He knew that He would be speaking to His sheep; teaching them and leading them into all truth. He knew that His sheep would listen to His voice.


I mean, that is the testimony of the words that others DID record, for those who (yet) need to SEE them.

"I will not leave you as orphans. I will come to you."

"My sheep listen to my voice."

"I have more sheep to bring; I will call them by name and they too will listen to my voice."

(and of course there are all the examples in what is written, of Him doing just that; and of His sheep listening to His voice)


And does it not simply make sense that a living being - one who is called the Word of God - would be able to continue to speak?




Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

It was typical for a Jewish Rabbis to teach verbally and for his disciples to write down the material. Nothing unusual here at all. The written word was valued less than the spoken in antiquity.

Yes, oratory was a valued skill. This has nothing to do with Christ's message unless you are content to reduce Christ to the status of just another Jewish rabbi. Paul, Christ's replacement, made good use of his writing materials.

If Christ is a messenger from God, a go-between, a Saviour, then let's not regard him as rabbi number 234. And let us ask why on earth the man, supposedly entrusted with the task of bringing God to the nations, wrote nothing of explanation for the nations but was content to have his words mangled by minions.

" I tell you, today you shall be with me in paradise" and
"I tell you today, you shall be with me in paradise."
This little comma, undetectable in oral parlance, spawned two different Christian communities. Was Christ ignorant of this? And was he ignorant of the obvious meaning of his promise to be back soon?

Yes, writing would have helped a lot.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

We should also comment that considering the silence as stemming from Jesus' "refusal" to write anything down is highly speculative. It was probably simply part and parcel of the time--he was a teacher with students.

You make Jesus into a surprisingly ordinary teacher, following the trade of his local academy, trusting strangers to record words they never heard. Some would suggest that Christ should have anticipated a variety of interpretations if he presented people with breath rather than something more concrete.

But if we are assigning Jesus to the ranks of the unknown rabbis, that is fine. Then he need not have written for his words were for the few who heard him, not for people of modern times. I can accept this.