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]

All that was attributed to Jesus was created by the gospel writers years after he was dead and gone.

That would have required the skills of a Tolstoy. I think Jesus did a variety of things: their interpretation moved from ordinary to miraculous. He went around courting trouble in a land where Jews honoured their faith. "I'm bigger than Abraham" was a provocative remark that earned him a death sentence. Had he stuck to beatitudes, he'd still be wandering around Israel shaking his head at the rockets raining down on her. Of course he'd be a bit older than Methuselah.


And he might still be writing.

[JehovahsWitness]

My point is that Christ would presumably have the ability to foresee difficulties in interpretation, would avoid ambiguities and would carefully explain the question of his being worshipped as God.

Incorrect me if I'm wrong your point is essentially built on the premise that what we read in the gospels cannot possibly be what he would have wanted, because you know (or you guess based on your own value system or possibly your mind reading capacities ) that Jesus would not have wanted any "difficulties in interpretation" or perceived "ambiguities" to exist in the minds of any potential reader.

Is that a fair summary?

[marco]

your point is essentially built on the premise that what we read in the gospels cannot possibly be what he would have wanted, because you know (or you guess based on your own value system or possibly your mind reading capacities ) that Jesus would not have wanted any "difficulties in interpretation" or perceived "ambiguities" to exist in the minds of any potential reader.

I don't read minds, especially not of dead people. If a work is such that it causes great controversy over what the words mean, then clarification would be useful. I think that's called common sense.

If Jesus wanted confusion, ambiguities and the occasional exaggeration what can I say? If he came to shed light rather than falsehood then it seems a good way would have been for him to state exactly who he was, why he had come and from where he obtained his credentials. A chapter on theology and the existence of God would have been illuminating too.


But if one prefers obscurity, doubt, exaggeration, contradiction then I can see that all these allow an idiosyncratic interpretation in line with one's chosen ideas.

[Mithrae]

Jesus looked at him and loved him. One thing you lack,he said. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

From cold pedant to impractical lover in a few seconds. On the planet which Christ is visiting people require material possessions. It is all very well to suggest the yellowhammer comes provided with clothes but that observation works only in golden theory. Christ might as well have added, "You can get there pretty fast if you take this sword."

If the man's autobiography contained such gems as the above, then his popularity with Rome might be minimal. There might of course be a footnote on how Jesus survived from day to day without mention of manna. Were miracles performed for breakfast each day?

Such obviously-impractical suggestions should rightly be met with mockery, no doubt, and often are.

• https://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap37.htm
  It is open to the world...to laugh at my dispossessing myself of all property. For me the dispossession has been a positive gain. I would like people to complete with me in my contentment. It is the richest treasure I own. Hence it is perhaps right to say that, though I preach poverty, I am a rich man!
  
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes
  He destroyed the single wooden bowl he possessed on seeing a peasant boy drink from the hollow of his hands. He then exclaimed: "Fool that I am, to have been carrying superfluous baggage all this time!" . . . .
  
  The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Lartius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the morning sunlight, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight."

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

That guy died over 2000 years ago and stayed dead, there is no evidence that supports him coming back to life again.

[JehovahsWitness]

your point is essentially built on the premise that what we read in the gospels cannot possibly be what he would have wanted, because you know (or you guess based on your own value system or possibly your mind reading capacities ) that Jesus would not have wanted any "difficulties in interpretation" or perceived "ambiguities" to exist in the minds of any potential reader.

I don't read minds, especially not of dead people. If a work is such that it causes great controversy over what the words mean, then clarification would be useful.

So would it be fair to say you don't, of course know but you sincerely believe the gospels are not as Christ would have wanted them and had he written them himself with his own hand that which you deem to be lacking therein would have been eliminated.

Is that a fair summary of your position as to why it would have been better if Christ had written his own biography and teachings?

[marco]

[Replying to post 35 by Mithrae]

Yes, these famous stories are not so much inspiration but thought-provoking. The paradox about the pauper being the richest is a common theme in literature. In Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice the gold and silver caskets were inferior to the lead.
Christianity builds itself on paradox too: death is life. God shows love by offering his son to be crucified.

I think that paradoxes in religion are good hiding places. The wisest man is a fool with God; the lowest shall become great. But people need practical instruction; we are not all capable of living in a barrel or like St. Anthony of Egypt surrendering our entire material estate and taking to living in a cave. There is an element of insanity in this, so possibly sainthood and insanity are second cousins.

Christ's written statement of who, what and why would clarify things. If his paragraphs continued to be about mustard seeds growing to the tallest trees we could make a better assessment of Christ. And perhaps that is why he wrote nothing down.

[marco]

Is that a fair summary of your position as to why it would have been better if Christ had written his own biography and teachings?

I have given my position with complete clarity. I need not provide a summary of what I said. If it is felt that the gospels are crystal clear; if a statement such as "I tell you today you shall be with me in paradise" is not ambiguous; and Thomas's exlamation in apparent recognition of deity has an obvious meaning.... then what we have would suffice to some extent. But in matters of theological importance it would have been good to have Christ's written statements rather than the estimates of those who were not present.

It would not merely be an autobiography, but a divine explanation of important questions. After all he did come as God's interpreter.

[ttruscott]

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.

The words of Truth would surely carry stronger force than War and Peace or Das Kapital.

But you know as well as I that Christian doctrine contends that the thinking of worldly man is corrupted by sinfulness and is not to be trusted. If they can reject the GOD who created the physical universe before their eyes, then what is a Book of Truth to them?

[Zzyzx]

.

If they can reject the GOD who created the physical universe before their eyes, then what is a Book of Truth to them?

Which of the thousands of proposed 'gods' did the creating? And, how can that be determined?