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]

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

Sadly, no. Alexander instead left cities; he acted rather than spoke. There are many texts relating to Buddha's teachings but he emphasised he wasn't a god.

The problem with Christ is that there are elements of threats of damnation; there is promise of salvation and indications of a road to heaven that is uniquely through Christ. Undoubtedly his written words would be useful, and given his divine powers, would carry conviction. We would then know if there was a Trinity instead of arguing grammatically. I see no disadvantage in having his written word and a host of advantages. Don't you?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]





Jesus didnt write his own biography, like Alexander the great he left that task to others (interestingly both men died about the same age). It is true, Jesus left no buildings, monuments or bridges to his name, however I do find note worthy the observations of writer H G Wells on the question of greatness...

CHOICE OF MR. H. G. WELLS CHRIST, BUDDHA, AND ARISTOTLE

"The historians test of an Individuals greatness is: What did he leave to grow? Did he start men to thinking along fresh lines with a vigour that persisted after him? By this test Jesus stands first."

- H G WELLS The Examiner, Sat 13 July 1935 p. 4
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article51945346

JW




RELATED POSTS

Is it true Jesus never said anything useful?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 079#952079

Did Jesus really say nothing even slightly "philosophical"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 101#952101

Are claims Jesus showed no interest in the animal kingdom correct?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 068#952068

Was Jesus rude to his mother?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 044#977044

Was Jesus just plain BAD?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 004#977004

[Tcg]

CHOICE OF MR. H. G. WELLS CHRIST, BUDDHA, AND ARISTOTLE

"The historians test of an Individuals greatness is: What did he leave to grow? Did he start men to thinking along fresh lines with a vigour that persisted after him? By this test Jesus stands first."

- H G WELLS The Examiner, Sat 13 July 1935 p. 4
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article51945346

Fresh lines? Jesus taught ancient superstitions of gods, angels, demons, life after death. Absolutely nothing fresh there. Jesus provided unverifiable comfort to solve unverifiable fears. Standard fare for apocalyptic preachers of his day and ours.


Tcg

[ttruscott]

Can there be good reasons why Christ left no written records?

He came to die for HIS people ...how would another text fulfil that over what we have? The Gospel is enough for the elect and a library of His own writings would never be enough for the non-elect.

[SallyF]

Can there be good reasons why Christ left no written records?

Perhaps he did leave written records .

Please consider this conspiracy theory:

The political Jesus character raises himself from the excommunication/dead by forming his own Jewish denomination/faction.

They need propaganda.

They need the Leader to be a god-man of great mystery who is temporarily in "Heaven" until he summons the legions of angels that failed to appear after the donkey parades to Herod's temple.

The nowhere-to-be-seen Jesus character and his cadre of faithful "apostles" fabricate the "Gospels", under names that do not include Jesus.

The reason there are differing manifestos, is that each manifesto is designed to appeal to a different Jewish faction. This explains the contradictory genealogies, for example. (The late B Thiering offered opinions on this hypothesis.)

Not a soul ever demonstrates that gods and their angels are anything more than imaginary. Put them aside, and "scripture" looks a lot like political propaganda.

[Zzyzx]

.
I see no reason to expect a wandering Jewish preacher from thousands of years ago to leave written records of his preachings.

Alternatively, if the biblical Jesus is actually only a character from ancient folklore, religious propaganda, and/or pious fiction, it would not be unexpected to find no writings by the character (only tales about him).

Those who presume or pretend to know that Jesus was a supernatural visitor might address the question of a lack of direct communication.

[Willum]

I am frequently amazed Jesus didn't impart novel and useful benefits to us.
You know, like how to immunize against smallpox.
That was easily in range of human capability then. Just a cut and a cow.

Much better than curing a leper and billions of times easier.

[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

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

Correct, a book about evolution by Darwin would be useless.
Correct, a book about quantum by Pauling would be useless.
Correct, a book about relativity by Einstein would be useless.
Correct, a book about immunology by Flemming would be useless.

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.

True, but if he had left Lazarus around to bear witness to death, or if he had told us about small pox, or gave us any mystery we wouldn't understand till we knew, it'd convince me. "The way of the stone is two, the way of light, three." I'll bet most folks today don't get that.

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

Most do. Yes, many of the Buddhas did. Memoirs anyway.

He came to die for HIS people ...how would another text fulfill that over what we have? The Gospel is enough for the elect and a library of His own writings would never be enough for the non-elect.

It's true, "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
The Bible is longer than "War and Peace."

I see no reason to expect a wandering Jewish preacher from thousands of years ago to leave written records of his preachings."

I leave written records of games I play and many things MORE important to me.
He would leave something if it were important to him it were not corrupted.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco, and to you all,

We know Muhammad was illiterate which makes his production of the Koran close to miraculous.

Muhammad did not produce the Quran; people later wrote down what he told them he received (which, like the bible, would have been subject to scribal errors - translation, copying, lack of understanding, etc).

Jesus scribbled in the dust but does not seem to have occupied himself with writing things down. Why?

Why would He write when He knew He was going to be alive to continue to teach and train and speak to His sheep?

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?

How do you know Rome propagated His message?

How do you know Rome did not appropriate (and make subsequent changes to) His message for their own gain?

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?

Of course.

It may have made no difference (to have something written in his own hand)... and/or... such writings may have been used to exert even more power and control over others (like as a relic or as some form of self-proclaimed authority on behalf of the person who holds the letter)... and/or... the written word can be corrupted (scribal errors; translation errors; copyist errors)... and/or.... people already twist the words we do have from Him in the gospels (due to lack of understanding), so why would that be any different if something was claimed to be in his own handwriting?



The written word is also stationary: it does not always apply to a specific situation. Christ, however, is the living Word. I think most of us can agree that if one wants to know the Truth, then it would be best to go TO the Truth. So why would Christ have written a letter encouraging people to direct their focus to that instead of coming directly to Him and listening to His voice? Why would He have encouraged people to treat Him as if He was dead, when He knew He would be alive?




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

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus scribbled in the dust but does not seem to have occupied himself with writing things down. Why?

Why would He write when He knew He was going to be alive to continue to teach and train and speak to His sheep?

Perhaps if Jesus had been something more than a wandering Jewish preacher and had written his thoughts he could have prevented the great divisiveness in his church that has produced tens of thousands of splinter groups, each claiming to know what he preached.

A supposedly supernaturally capable entity could, presumably, express and record ideas, goals, guidance, instructions, expectations clearly in a form easily understood by anyone (including sheep).

Some intelligent writing might also have prevented having many people claiming to hear voices in their head that they seem to think is Jesus talking to them. Strange that he tells different things to different people.

Until recently voices were regarded as a symptom of a mental illness and not talked about because of fear of stigma. Hearing voices is still considered by psychiatry as an auditory hallucination and as a symptom of conditions such as schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis. Traumatic life experiences (e.g. sexual abuse, neglect, loss of a parent) are considered to be among the most significant triggers of auditory hallucinations, particularly among children. As many as 70% of participants in one study reported that hearing voices started following a traumatic or significant emotional event significant triggers of auditory hallucinations, particularly among children.
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/h/hearing-voices

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by tam]

How do you know Rome did not appropriate (and make subsequent changes to) His message for their own gain?

That is exactly what we do know.

The original books of the Bible - if they existed, were destroyed before they were propagated by Rome. We have only the Roman Catholics Church's word that the ones that were propagated by the Holy Roman Empire, were faithful representations of anything.

I mean why would the Holy Roman Emperor authorize such scribes and resources as it took to promote a religion all over his political and trade routes?

Could it be that the Bible had a subtle message in it about paying tax to Rome?
Could it be that the Bible implored people in God's name to obey government?
Keep peace?

What we don't know for sure, tam, is what, if anything, the original letters in the NT actually said.
They might have promoted following the OT, for example.