Why didn't Jesus write a book?

[Randy_Carson]

You’re under the impression that most of the Apostles couldn’t read and write? Are you kidding?You think Paul was 400 plus years old when he wrote his letter to the church at Rome, to the Ephesians, to the Galatians, to those a Philippi? John was 400 plus years old when he wrote the Book of Revelation? Peter when he wrote to dispersed Jews?

Even while Paul was making his missionary journeys his letters were being copied and passed around to other churches. The earliest church writers, after the Apostolic age, quoted from most of the N.T. writings profusely. They were available.

I’m with you on this one. All of the books and letters now contained in the New Testament were completed by the end of the first century or very early in the second at the latest.

What Puppy should have said was that the Catholic Church compiled the books and letters that it recognized as inspired in the fourth century beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 AD (if memory serves me) and reaffirmed in subsequent councils.

It should also be pointed out that the Catholic Church rejected spurious letters purporting to be from Paul which Paul himself refers to in one of his canonical letters (Galatians?). They also excluded some very excellent writings (Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, etc.) which were considered by some to be inspired.

 

[puppypatrol]

First of all, I didn’t say the Apostles were illiterate. I believe I used the word DICIPLE. Many of the followers of Christ, with the exception of the Apostles, were the poor, the humble, etc… Some were highly educated but, moondweller, you are assuming that Jesus only has 12 followers, he had hundreds.

When you bring up the letters of Paul and Peter, etc, they were writing letters to their people like we write letters to our family. They didn’t expect those letters to be bound for posterity. Do you seriously believe that Paul and Peter thought their words to be so important as to be put in a book for generations. I don’t think any of them were that proud nor believed themselves to be that self important. There letters may have been copied but obviously Paul couldn’t have been everywhere and seen everyone so he had to communicate somehow. His letters, at the time, were still considered “Oral Tradition”

Both Randy and moondweller, don’t read more into my response that was written. The subject was why Jesus didn’t write a book. He wanted people to believe in him based on faith and what they heard. And I have to commend the Church on what a good job it’s members did for the first 3-400 years until the New Testement was compiled with only oral tradition. It was divine providence that the writings of the Apostles and other diciples survived until someone could gather them up in one place.

Yes, the Catholic Church compiled the Bible and there were many writings that didn’t make the grade. Am I bad, I assumed that went without saying. But even the other writing from the early church fathers that aren’t in the Bible are worth a read.

You can’t interpret words and actions of the times of the Apostles with the values and knowledge of today. They just didn’t know then what we know now. That’s how you should understand history.

 

[moondweller]

First of all, I didn’t say the Apostles were illiterate. I believe I used the word DICIPLE. Many of the followers of Christ, with the exception of the Apostles, were the poor, the humble, etc… Some were highly educated but, moondweller, you are assuming that Jesus only has 12 followers, he had hundreds.

Puppy, you were implying that the majority of those in Israel at the time of Christ were illiterate. Keep in mind that John, Peter and James were lowly fishermen. And Jesus Himself was born into a lowly carpenter’s home. John, Peter, James and even Jesus were educated.

Don’t get confused with the middle ages of Gentile, Western Europe which came out of Germanic tribes. Israel educated its children (boys in schools, girls at home), being raised in the traditions and Torah. It had a built-in educational system. Judaism was not handed down to each generation through mythical stories, but preserved in the Jewish Scriptures, the written Word of God.

When you bring up the letters of Paul and Peter, etc, they were writing letters to their people like we write letters to our family. They didn’t expect those letters to be bound for posterity. Do you seriously believe that Paul and Peter thought their words to be so important as to be put in a book for generations.

From the beginning even Peter recognized Paul’s writings to be Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). It’s the Holy Spirit Himself who produced the writing through human authors. And by Divine Providence they were recognized and preserved for future generations. God Himself has testified:Jer 1:12 "…for I am watching over My word to perform it."This is as true for the N.T. as it was for the Old.

 

[puppypatrol]

Still reading too much into what I have said. Oh well…

I know my history, Catholic and otherwise, and some anthropology. Enough said

 

[bluebossa1]

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who have trouble accepting the words of Jesus because they come second hand. I wonder why Jesus didn’t write a book. The answer seems like it is quite simple, but it eludes me for the time being.

Here i pose a better question. Why WOULD he write a book? He came down to open up the gates of heaven! He instituted the Catholic Church by handing the keys down to Peter. Jesus came and started a Church, he didn’t write a book. A book can be interpreted MILLIONS of ways, whereas the true teachings of a Church can only be taken the way they are taught.

 

[anon5216]

Here i pose a better question. Why WOULD he write a book? He came down to open up the gates of heaven! He instituted the Catholic Church by handing the keys down to Peter. Jesus came and started a Church, he didn’t write a book. A book can be interpreted MILLIONS of ways, whereas the true teachings of a Church can only be taken the way they are taught.

That’s a very naive interpretation. How about Jesus writes down his teachings directly so no one can get it wrong and then founds a Church to insure the interpretation of that book stays accurate and consistent? As is, the whole text of the Bible is suspect to all kinds of errors of translations. Starting with errors in the translation by the authors of the various independent writings from Inspiration (if true) to human readable text. Continuing with errors of translation from one human language to another. Not to mention errors of translation from one cultural colloquialism to a new era where that phrase has a completely different connotation. The same with symbolic language - symbolic language neither translates properly from language to language of a given era using pure textual translation, nor does it translate properly within a given language from one era to another.

Given this, even an authentic written teaching created by Jesus himself would suffer error of interpretation as language and culture evolves - a Church guarding the interpretation notwithstanding.

I posit that Truth is its own language and is non-textual and non-verbal. Also, that any textual document or textual interpretation of a document, etc. etc., can only be a vague and easily misinterpreted hint at Truth. Perhaps if a person really knows the language of Truth, they could properly see Truth reflected imperfectly in various texts, but no title - inherited or conferred by any means - in any way guarantees getting from text to Truth.

You could memorize the entire canon of any religious tradition and all the supportive commentaries and interpretive texts, and still no guarantee of getting from text to Truth. Conversely, not knowing these texts does not necessarily prevent you from getting to Truth. Stories from many religious traditions - including of course Catholicism - abound with anecdotes of scripturally uneducated people reaching what others consider to be Truth.

Truth is beyond human language. You’ll never get there while attached to believing any human language text being Truth itself. Use the text itself as a starting point to go beyond it or bypass texts entirely, but you must go beyond human language to get to Truth.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[Deconi]

That’s a very naive interpretation. How about Jesus writes down his teachings directly so no one can get it wrong and then founds a Church to insure the interpretation of that book stays accurate and consistent? As is, the whole text of the Bible is suspect to all kinds of errors of translations. Starting with errors in the translation by the authors of the various independent writings from Inspiration (if true) to human readable text. Continuing with errors of translation from one human language to another. Not to mention errors of translation from one cultural colloquialism to a new era where that phrase has a completely different connotation. The same with symbolic language - symbolic language neither translates properly from language to language of a given era using pure textual translation, nor does it translate properly within a given language from one era to another.

Given this, even an authentic written teaching created by Jesus himself would suffer error of interpretation as language and culture evolves - a Church guarding the interpretation notwithstanding.

I posit that Truth is its own language and is non-textual and non-verbal. Also, that any textual document or textual interpretation of a document, etc. etc., can only be a vague and easily misinterpreted hint at Truth. Perhaps if a person really knows the language of Truth, they could properly see Truth reflected imperfectly in various texts, but no title - inherited or conferred by any means - in any way guarantees getting from text to Truth.

You could memorize the entire canon of any religious tradition and all the supportive commentaries and interpretive texts, and still no guarantee of getting from text to Truth. Conversely, not knowing these texts does not necessarily prevent you from getting to Truth. Stories from many religious traditions - including of course Catholicism - abound with anecdotes of scripturally uneducated people reaching what others consider to be Truth.

Truth is beyond human language. You’ll never get there while attached to believing any human language text being Truth itself. Use the text itself as a starting point to go beyond it or bypass texts entirely, but you must go beyond human language to get to Truth.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

Hmm…interesting!

If you, yourself, want to teach your children all that is best for them for their wellbeing, throughout their lives, do you show them by example and explanations, or do you tell them to wait until you’re dead and then read your diary?

Perhaps you are committing your daily life and experiences to writing so that when the kids need to know anything about WHAT THEIR FATHER would have them do in any given situation, they can read it for themselves!?..and have the ‘missus’ interpret it for them if they aren’t sure!..in your absence, of course.

I know teachers have to learn to teach. Some people are born teachers. But I will be damned if I’ve ever met a teacher that instructs a scribe to follow him/her around and write down what s/he teaches, while s/he teaches, so that future children will know the truthfulness, or correctness, of her / his teachings!

Just a thought…

 

[ForMary]

I can read using only my eyes. I cannot write using only my eyes.

rossum

But if you use your eyes when reading English and see a short verticle line with a dot over it (representing a lower case “i”) don’t you think you would be able to reproduce it with your hand?

I believe Jesus could probably write, but did not come to write, nor did he have the time, as was previously mentioned.

Of course there are the “Q” sayings that are a list of Jesus quotes, teachings, etc. I don’t think these were written, probably compiled and orally shared.

Eventually, the Church became large and broad enough that things did need to be written and they were, and then they were copied and translated (well before they came into the hands of those who reviewed and canonized the books), what we have left are what we know as the bible.

Some Gnostic texts contain similar Quelle (“Q”) listings, but because of the Gnostic bent, most are sumarily dismissed.

My two cents.

 

[moondweller]

Truth is beyond human language. You’ll never get there while attached to believing any human language text being Truth itself. Use the text itself as a starting point to go beyond it or bypass texts entirely, but you must go beyond human language to get to Truth.

And yet you use written text and human language to communicate to us what you imagine is truth. What blatant hypocrisy.Jer 1:12 "Then the LORD said to me,…“I am watching over My word to perform it.”

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

Who or what is this god of yours? How do you know he/she/it exists? And how will it “bless” us? Through a vow of silence? And yet you, its prophet, speak a blessing to us through the vehicle of *text *and human language. :whacky:

 

[frankblahnik]

This much seems true from historical documentation and reasoning, Jesus did rise from the dead and appeared to many, and therefore Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed to be. With this in mind, I think it makes sense to take the Bible very seriously. Something happened to “Saul the avenger”, to change him into the apostle Paul. James, the cousin of Jesus saw something (someone), after the crucifixion that made him into a believer (he was not a believer before the crucifixion). We need to look these details and many others that point to Jesus in fact being the Son of God. Once this is accepted, there is no need for a hand written book from Jesus saying “I am”. Jesus could of wrote “I am”, but people would still have to accept his words as true. It makes more sense for us to look at all the martyr’s and wonder, why did they die for something they believed (and saw with their own eyes). What caused them to no longer fear death? They were pretty crushed after the crucifixion. Something happened to inspire and motivate them. The inspiration and motivation lives to this day. Something big happened. Something really big. We cannot take this for granted. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he is who he claimed to be…The Son of God.

No book is necessary. Just take a serious look at the historical documents. The truth will set you free.

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

In my opinion Jesus was a Bodhisattva. In Buddhism that is a greater honour than mere divinity.

rossum

How many New Age followers are on this forum?

 

[patrick457]

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who have trouble accepting the words of Jesus because they come second hand. I wonder why Jesus didn’t write a book. The answer seems like it is quite simple, but it eludes me for the time being.

Simple. Because He did not want to, and given that He and His disciples were frequently on the move and were often away from public places (since the multitudes would just crowd Him, depriving Him of some space), He did not have the time nor money to sit down, take a reed and a sheet of papyrus and start jotting down what He ate for lunch or how many people He had cured in one day. And even if He did practice His letters or wrote small notes on, say, scraps of papyri or pottery pieces or what-have-you, they are all lost and probably would continue to be, unless through some Divine intervention we discover some or even all of them (and positively identify that they were written by the hand of Yeshua bar-Yosef of Nazareth).

Now to be serious. Writing an autobiography is not what Jesus came to do. He was not born to publish literature, have it turn into a best-seller, and become the best-selling author of the year. He came to save His people from their sins.

He could have paid scribes to record each and every move He makes while He was still on this planet. But He didn’t.

There was this saying, “Jesus did not come to earth to write a book, but to found a Church.”

 

[didymus]

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who have trouble accepting the words of Jesus because they come second hand. I wonder why Jesus didn’t write a book. The answer seems like it is quite simple, but it eludes me for the time being.

I dunno – why didn’t he come after the invention of electronic media so we could have His own words on audio- and videotape?

The same number of people would still believe Him and disbelieve Him. Remember the parable of Lazarus and the rich man when the rich man asks to be allowed to return to warn his brothers (according to the Gospel) Jesus replied, “If they did not believe Moses and the Prophets, they will not believe one returned from the dead.”

Same deal.
If we had a Gospel of Jesus “modern scholarship” would tell us it’s obviously a fake or a composite put together by the community after His death or whatever.

 

[anon5216]

Hmm…interesting!

If you, yourself, want to teach your children all that is best for them for their wellbeing, throughout their lives, do you show them by example and explanations, or do you tell them to wait until you’re dead and then read your diary? Your example refers to one generation. You’re not saying Jesus only came for the 1st generation of disciples, are you? Even there, words are words, why do you think that verbal vs. written are mutually exclusive? Surely God Incarnate could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Perhaps you are committing your daily life and experiences to writing so that when the kids need to know anything about WHAT THEIR FATHER would have them do in any given situation, they can read it for themselves!?..and have the ‘missus’ interpret it for them if they aren’t sure!..in your absence, of course.
If you’re going to use the analogy of offspring, please match the generations. If a generation were ~20 years, then we are almost 100 generations later than your example.

I know teachers have to learn to teach. Some people are born teachers. But I will be damned if I’ve ever met a teacher that instructs a scribe to follow him/her around and write down what s/he teaches, while s/he teaches, so that future children will know the truthfulness, or correctness, of her / his teachings!
I was somehow under the impression that the issue was the accuracy of second hand claims of what the the teachings really were. I realize the Church claims these later reminiscences are by definition accurate, but what else was that group of all too human people in positions of religious authority going to say?

Just a thought…
Just a thought…

 

[anon5216]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anon5216
Truth is beyond human language. You’ll never get there while attached to believing any human language text being Truth itself. Use the text itself as a starting point to go beyond it or bypass texts entirely, but you must go beyond human language to get to Truth.
And yet you use written text and human language to communicate to us what you imagine is truth. What blatant hypocrisy.
Jer 1:12 "Then the LORD said to me,…“I am watching over My word to perform it.”
I am a human communicating to other humans via a text interface - of course I’m using human language and written text. I’m not claiming to know God’s language. I’m not claiming to be “enlightened”. What I believe is no more/less my imagination of truth than what you believe is the imagination of Church leaders past and present (colored of course by your personal imagination). I do say that we need to go far beyond our imagination to get to Truth. There is no hypocrisy here.

Quote:
May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.
Who or what is this god of yours? God with a capital ‘G’. How do you know he/she/it exists? How do you? And how will it “bless” us? You don’t believe God (not our personal or organized religion imagination of God, but just God) has the ability to “bless”? Through a vow of silence? Vows of silence are a human practice. And yet you, its prophet, speak a blessing to us through the vehicle of text and human language. I’ve never claimed to be a prophet. I’m not claiming to give a blessing. Again, I’m just a human communicating with humans - of course I’m using the vehicle of text and human language.

“IF” I ever achieve the spiritual state beyond mind that can know the language of God, I’ll be more direct.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[anon5216]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossum
In my opinion Jesus was a Bodhisattva. In Buddhism that is a greater honour than mere divinity.

rossum
How many New Age followers are on this forum?

“New Age”?

Come now, Buddhism predates Christianity by 500 years (Hinduism is even older). Not only that, but Buddhist missionaries reached the middle east (including Syria, Egypt and even Macedonia) at least 100 years before Christ. That leads to some interesting possibilities for the 18 years in the life of Jesus unaccounted for in the Bible.

Trade routes existed between the Indus Valley civilization, through the Persian Gulf, to Alexandria, Egypt. The Wise Men from the “East” could have come along this route, not to mention Jesus following this route east to India - as historical evidence has suggested.

Then there’s the fact that the teachings of Jesus are far more closely aligned to Buddhist Dharma (not to mention certain aspects of Hinduism) than they are to the Jewish Torah.

The Essene community was very likely not Jewish in origin at all. The Jews had no system of monasticism - this came from Buddhism - which then is the true source of Catholic monasticism.

John the Baptist was certainly not a member in good standing of the local Jewish power structure, so his baptisms were outside mainstream Judaism.

The evidence suggests that Christianity’s roots are not from the Old Testament at all. That when Jesus referenced writings of the Torah, he did so in the same way Buddhist missionaries used local religious belief terminology to communicate their Buddhist concepts in a manner that the locals would understand and be receptive to. (Even Catholic missionaries in more modern times have used this technique.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who have trouble accepting the words of Jesus because they come second hand. I wonder why Jesus didn’t write a book. The answer seems like it is quite simple, but it eludes me for the time being.

**There’s something called the NT - it’s as good as that, in effect. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

i dont know about this one, i can read and write in spanish, better than i can speak it, but no one ever taught me how to write, they just taught me how to read.

further, i can read and write to some degree portuguese, and italian, though not as well,

indeed with my small knowledge of english and spanish, i can puzzle out the meanings in the written forms of german, swiss, french, other members of that language group.

i think if one can read a langauge one can write it, isnt it just a matter of copying the letters?

Depends on the language - they don’t all have letters - Chinese has none.​

 

[frankblahnik]

How many New Age followers are on this forum?

*“New Age”?

Come now, Buddhism predates Christianity by 500 years (Hinduism is even older). Not only that, but Buddhist missionaries reached the middle east (including Syria, Egypt and even Macedonia) at least 100 years before Christ. That leads to some interesting possibilities for the 18 years in the life of Jesus unaccounted for in the Bible.

Trade routes existed between the Indus Valley civilization, through the Persian Gulf, to Alexandria, Egypt. The Wise Men from the “East” could have come along this route, not to mention Jesus following this route east to India - as historical evidence has suggested.

Then there’s the fact that the teachings of Jesus are far more closely aligned to Buddhist Dharma (not to mention certain aspects of Hinduism) than they are to the Jewish Torah.*

The Essene community was very likely not Jewish in origin at all. The Jews had no system of monasticism - this came from Buddhism - which then is the true source of Catholic monasticism.

John the Baptist was certainly not a member in good standing of the local Jewish power structure, so his baptisms were outside mainstream Judaism.

The evidence suggests that Christianity’s roots are not from the Old Testament at all. That when Jesus referenced writings of the Torah, he did so in the same way Buddhist missionaries used local religious belief terminology to communicate their Buddhist concepts in a manner that the locals would understand and be receptive to. (Even Catholic missionaries in more modern times have used this technique.

Jesus may have known about buddhism. We know Jesus knew about judaism. Jesus could have been familiarized with hinduism.

Thank you for pointing that out. I never really thought about it. Jesus could have been familiar with a lot of stuff.

But the fact is, Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus taught in his own way, and under his own authority. Jesus was not a follower, he was a leader. Jesus started his own Church. His Church lives to this day. He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[anon5216]

Jesus may have known about buddhism. We know Jesus knew about judaism. Jesus could have been familiarized with hinduism.

Thank you for pointing that out. I never really thought about it. Jesus could have been familiar with a lot of stuff.

But the fact is, Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus taught in his own way, and under his own authority. Jesus was not a follower, he was a leader. Jesus started his own Church. His Church lives to this day. He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Jesus is the Son of God.

The thing is, with all the evidence that Jesus’ teachings share much more in common with certain aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism than his teachings share with Judaism, we really have to rethink the context of how to correctly interpret his message.

There is historical evidence of him having traveled to India during the “missing” 18 years. Without thoroughly researching these connections you simply can’t know the full cultural context of the message and therefore can’t discern the true meaning of the message.

Without that you are clutching at an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of “the facts”.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.