Why????

[POI]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself, and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?
2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

[Diogenes]

1. Why didn't Jesus write the final canon himself?

If Jesus had spent his time writting, [sic] there would have been little for him to write about.

Another speculative claim with no merit. Jesus lived approximately 33 years. He could have spent about 20 of that writing before his public ministry began and he certainly could have written the things he said during his three and a half year ministry. In fact most effective speakers at least make notes before they speak. They also write out their thoughts and speeches before giving them, refining their words. Lincoln, for example, wrote out several drafts of the Gettysburg Address before delivering it, despite the burdens of a wartime presidency.

Time was hardly an impediment to writing and could have assisted him. He may, however, have been illiterate. Most men of his day were, especially those who labored in the manual arts such as fishing and carpentry.

"The reality is that the vast majority of people then and there could not read or write. This comes as a surprise to many people who have heard the modern myth that all boys in Palestine went to Hebrew school and became literate there. Turns out, that’s not true."
https://ehrmanblog.org/could-jesus-read/

Ehrman goes on to discuss this in greater depth.

Could Jesus Read? Probably Not

My strong sense is that Jesus could not write. I think he certainly could not compose, and he was probably never trained to copy (for example, the Scriptures). That kind of training took years, and I doubt if the kind of hand-to-mouth existence he and his family had in the little hamlet of Nazareth would have afforded him the time or leisure to get it.

But could he read? As it turns out, there is some conflict over that matter just within the pages of the New Testament. In Mark 6, we learn that Jesus’ own townspeople – the ones he grew up with, cheek by jowl (Nazareth was a very small place) – are flabbergasted that he has learned of any kind and can’t understand how he came by it (Mark 6:2-4). This is based on his teaching in the synagogue, and the passage does not indicate that Jesus actually read the Scriptures before he started teaching about them. But the clear implication from this, our earliest account of the matter, is that Jesus was not known by the people who would have known to have had an education.
There is Some Evidence in Luke 4 that Jesus Could Read

This view is at odds, however, with the way the same story is told in Luke 4:16-21. This is the one passage in the entire NT that indicates that Jesus could read. He does read. And the people are not amazed that he suddenly seems educated when they knew he wasn’t; they are instead taken aback at the “gracious words” that he spoke.

[Miles]

1. Why didn't Jesus write the final canon himself?

If Jesus had spent his time writting, there would have been little for him to write about.

Jesus' ministry was only 3 and a half years long and a proper examination of the gospels shows how hard he worked, on the road continuously for almost the entire time. Preaching, teaching and miracle working from dawn til dusk for the most part, Jesus had the same 24 hours a day as anyone else. Time and energy being finite Jesus evidently chose to prioritize, concentrating on what nobody but he could do and leaving written records in the hands of his trusted companions.

Hold on a sec. Here's a guy who could heal lepers, restore the sight of the blind, and feed 4,000 people with seven small barley loaves and two small fish, but couldn't find the time to write his memoirs? Give me a break. If he put his mind to I bet Jesus could even raise people from the dead. . . . . . Whoa!!! What 's that you say???

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

With his talent for performing miracles all he might need to do is place his hands on sheets of paper and the words, in all their perfection and accuracy, would just appear.

[PolytheistWitch]

Gods interacted with men way before any writing. Texts, while they can be considered sacred are not the end all be all of a relationship with a deity. One should be asking why is it that people only seem to connect with Jesus through text and not through spiritual contact?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

With his talent for performing miracles all he might need to do is place his hands on sheets of paper and the words, in all their perfection and accuracy, would just appear.

Exactly my thought as well. Why couldn't it be possible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anyone?

.

[POI]

1. Why didn't Jesus write the final canon himself?

If Jesus had spent his time writting, there would have been little for him to write about.

I stated final canon. He could have produced it upon his resurrection return. He could have handed them out to all, as he was appearing to many. He could have also made them indestructible, etc.... Surely you are not limiting his abilities to that of a mere human, are you?

On a purely secular level we can be reasonably confident scripture has come to us the 21st century as it was written.

How could you possibly know that? Again, if it wasn't written by Jesus himself, (which it wasn't BTW), how do we even know what he really said? And even if someone was writing down what he really said, as he was saying it, it was not preserved. Even in the best case scenario, what he really said could be completely corrupted.

That Jesus companions wrote true and accurate accounts of His life has to remain a matter of faith.

Faith can be applied to anything. Why apply faith to this collections of later written books, and not any opposing collection of man made writings -- which also claim divinity?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This assumes Divine Hiddenness is not a thing, which it clearly is. Either God is not real, or God is real and he chooses to remain mostly hidden. If you think about, that answers your questions.


If God made it overly clear, then God would not remain mostly hidden. However, he leaves enough evidence there so that you can come to be convinced if you have just a little faith, which is clearly what he desires.

It is Jesus said he would not heal many of them because they lacked faith.


What I find very interesting is Bart Ehrman vs Mike Lacona debate. Bart is who actually makes the greatest case for Christ resurrecting. He agrees to historical facts.

1. Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.
2. The tomb was empty.
3. The disciples were convinced that Jesus rose and preached it.
4. They risked their lives doing so.

Bart then gives what he says is a BAD answer to explain these facts. He points that that it is such a bad answer that he doesn't even believe it, but because he is an atheist, he thinks a horrible answer that doesn't really explain the historical facts is more believable than Jesus rose from the dead. That is not how reasoning works. The best explanation is the best explanation. It doesn't matter if the explanation is a miracle.

If I have a set of data and no other explanation answers all the data well except that we must have saw a ghost, then seeing a ghost is the best explanation.

So for us theists, Bart just gave us high confidence in the resurrection. We believe miracles can happen, so the best explanation is not odd to us. Jesus rose.

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW HUMAN INPUT IN THE PRODUCTION OF HIS WORD?

Because it was evidently His good pleasure to let these humans share their stories and experiences, and give the book the appeal that it has today because it is full of men and women that lived lives that were common to all humans. It is a book for mankind, Jehovah's immense generosity, wisdom and insight knew it would be best written from a human perspective with human input.

RELATED POSTS

Why would God choose to communicate via the written word?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p766608

Why didn't God just write the bible Himself?
viewtopic.php?p=1106952#p1106952

Why didn't Jesus write the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1106949#p1106949

Why didn't Jesus just make the gospels pop up out of thin air ?
viewtopic.php?p=1107017#p1107017

Why use humans to produce the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1107005#p1107005

Would God's use of human "secretaries" to write the bible not have corrupted it from its start?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p833783

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[POI]

WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW HUMAN JNPUT IN THE PRODUCTION OF HIS WORD?

Because God it was evidently his good pleasure to let these humans share their stories and experiences, and give the book the appeal that it has today because it is full of men and women that lived lives that were common to all humans. It is a book for mankind, Jehovah's immense generosity, wisdom and insight knew it would be best written from a human perspective with human input.

RELATED POSTS

Why would God choose to communicate via the written word?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p766608

Why didn't God just write the bible himself?
viewtopic.php?p=1106952#p1106952

Why use humans to produce the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1107005#p1107005

Would God's use of human "secretaries" to write the bible not have corrupted it from its start?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p833783

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

Virtually nothing here addressed post 16.

[Tcg]

WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW HUMAN JNPUT IN THE PRODUCTION OF HIS WORD?

Because God it was evidently his good pleasure to let these humans share their stories and experiences, and give the book the appeal that it has today because it is full of men and women that lived lives that were common to all humans. It is a book for mankind, Jehovah's immense generosity, wisdom and insight knew it would be best written from a human perspective with human input.

Well, that and the fact that there is no verifiable evidence that god/gods exist. Of course there has to be human input, there is no reason to believe there is anything but human input.


Tcg