Why didn't Jesus write a book?

[frankblahnik]

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.

You mention message a lot in your post. Would you mind enlighting us with what you believe the message Jesus came to bring is? :thankyou:

 

[anon5216]

You mention message a lot in your post. Would you mind enlighting us with what you believe the message Jesus came to bring is? :thankyou:

I didn’t want to use the word “teachings” 5 times, so I used it twice and “message” 3 times. There’s no special significance to the choice of words. Is there a distinction in Catholic theology that I should be careful of making?

I’m not trying to be academically/theologically precise to the minutest detail, for a “vernacular” discussion. However, if common usage amongst Catholics clearly distinguishes between these words, please enlighten me and I will try to use them in accord with the common consensus of their proper usage.

My post was merely suggesting that studying and interpreting what you believe to be the words of Jesus, out of the full context they originated from would be highly misleading and prone to error.

You have to decide. Do you worship your (or the Catholic Church’s) incomplete ideas that have been developed with a crucial set of 18 years of context missing from the accepted record, or do you want to know the whole truth, no matter what that may be?

Just because the jewish locals had no record of Jesus’ whereabouts or activities during that time does not mean he was out of contact with all human beings. Wherever he went, I expect he would have been somewhat conspicuous and noteworthy and out of those who recognized the exceptional qualities he exuded, some oral and or written records would inevitably have been left behind.

The (non-jewish) “magi from the east” went through a lot of effort find Jesus. The mystery of their connection for a brief moment early on, and apparent disappearance from the story, may not be an unfathomable divine mystery at all, but merely a simply solved human one that could start the trail to uncovering the whole 18 years of additional context. Solving this historical mystery would allow for a much more complete understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings.

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.

 

[frankblahnik]

I didn’t want to use the word “teachings” 5 times, so I used it twice and “message” 3 times. There’s no special significance to the choice of words. Is there a distinction in Catholic theology that I should be careful of making?

I’m not trying to be academically/theologically precise to the minutest detail, for a “vernacular” discussion. However, if common usage amongst Catholics clearly distinguishes between these words, please enlighten me and I will try to use them in accord with the common consensus of their proper usage.

My post was merely suggesting that studying and interpreting what you believe to be the words of Jesus, out of the full context they originated from would be highly misleading and prone to error.

You have to decide. Do you worship your (or the Catholic Church’s) incomplete ideas that have been developed with a crucial set of 18 years of context missing from the accepted record, or do you want to know the whole truth, no matter what that may be?

Just because the jewish locals had no record of Jesus’ whereabouts or activities during that time does not mean he was out of contact with all human beings. Wherever he went, I expect he would have been somewhat conspicuous and noteworthy and out of those who recognized the exceptional qualities he exuded, some oral and or written records would inevitably have been left behind.

The (non-jewish) “magi from the east” went through a lot of effort find Jesus. The mystery of their connection for a brief moment early on, and apparent disappearance from the story, may not be an unfathomable divine mystery at all, but merely a simply solved human one that could start the trail to uncovering the whole 18 years of additional context. Solving this historical mystery would allow for a much more complete understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings.

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.

While I admit it would be interesting to know more about Jesus’ earlier years, but what’s truely important is Jesus’ final years here, and we do know some about that…Enough to put the pieces of the puzzle together anyway. What more could you possibly add?

 

[anon5216]

While I admit it would be interesting to know more about Jesus’ earlier years, but what’s truely important is Jesus’ final years here, and we do know some about that…Enough to put the pieces of the puzzle together anyway. What more could you possibly add?

Words having meaning only in context. The same words spoken by different people from different backgrounds can have radically different intent in their meaning. If the words are symbolic or poetic in any way, the potential differences get magnified accordingly.

From that perspective, the missing 18 years of context is hugely important. The further Jesus traveled during that time - and 18 years is plenty long enough to travel quite distant, even 2000 years ago by caravan or whatever - the more crucial it is to research and find out, if Jesus’ teachings are to be correctly understood.

I know the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit guarantees against misinterpretation, but they came to that conclusion based on a huge gap in context for their understanding. Wishing and claiming that to be the case just doesn’t make it so.

If the Holy Spirit has guaranteed anything, it’s not necessarily in the form of a human hierarchy interpreting written recollections infallibly.

I don’t see how any seriously spiritual Christian could bear knowing that their understanding of Jesus’ teachings can’t be accurate without full context, and not do what they can to find out. More than individual research, there should be pressure on professional historians to dig into this and publish findings - people whose entire career is founded on solving historical mysteries.

In the present time, we have the means to do this - we just need the collective will.

(At this point in the thread, we’re probably diverging a bit too far from the original topic. I’ll start a new thread if you agree and there’s interest in pursuing this discussion specifically.)

 

[frankblahnik]

Words having meaning only in context. The same words spoken by different people from different backgrounds can have radically different intent in their meaning. If the words are symbolic or poetic in any way, the potential differences get magnified accordingly.

From that perspective, the missing 18 years of context is hugely important. The further Jesus traveled during that time - and 18 years is plenty long enough to travel quite distant, even 2000 years ago by caravan or whatever - the more crucial it is to research and find out, if Jesus’ teachings are to be correctly understood.

I know the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit guarantees against misinterpretation, but they came to that conclusion based on a huge gap in context for their understanding. Wishing and claiming that to be the case just doesn’t make it so.

If the Holy Spirit has guaranteed anything, it’s not necessarily in the form of a human hierarchy interpreting written recollections infallibly.

I don’t see how any seriously spiritual Christian could bear knowing that their understanding of Jesus’ teachings can’t be accurate without full context, and not do what they can to find out. More than individual research, there should be pressure on professional historians to dig into this and publish findings - people whose entire career is founded on solving historical mysteries.

In the present time, we have the means to do this - we just need the collective will.

(At this point in the thread, we’re probably diverging a bit too far from the original topic. I’ll start a new thread if you agree and there’s interest in pursuing this discussion specifically.)

We are still touching on the topic of this thread so lets just stay here.

Lets say Jesus took a trip to India and learned about buddhism. How does this change anything?

 

[anon5216]

We are still touching on the topic of this thread so lets just stay here.

Lets say Jesus took a trip to India and learned about buddhism. How does this change anything?

If Jesus could already hold his own in discourse with the Jerusalem rabbis by the time he was 10 years old, it certainly makes sense that he would look for more advanced wisdom elsewhere. Jesus spent 18 years exposed to foreign cultures while advancing in his wisdom, and returned to a society that was still at a stage he was at as a 10 year old.

This itself is pretty much a guarantee of misinterpretation by both the local jews and all subsequent generations of believers who only use this jewish context (and their own) to attempt to understand and interpret Jesus’ teachings.

The magi are a possible connection to other cultures. If Jesus went to India and studied personally with Buddhist and/or Hindu spiritual masters, then understanding his teachings requires proper research into what came from a Jewish context and what came from an Indian context.

Without this, everyone’s interpretation of Jesus’ teachings (including the Pope’s), can be nothing other than rife with fallacies.

 

[frankblahnik]

If Jesus could already hold his own in discourse with the Jerusalem rabbis by the time he was 10 years old, it certainly makes sense that he would look for more advanced wisdom elsewhere. Jesus spent 18 years exposed to foreign cultures while advancing in his wisdom, and returned to a society that was still at a stage he was at as a 10 year old.

This itself is pretty much a guarantee of misinterpretation by both the local jews and all subsequent generations of believers who only use this jewish context (and their own) to attempt to understand and interpret Jesus’ teachings.

The magi are a possible connection to other cultures. If Jesus went to India and studied personally with Buddhist and/or Hindu spiritual masters, then understanding his teachings requires proper research into what came from a Jewish context and what came from an Indian context.

Without this, everyone’s interpretation of Jesus’ teachings (including the Pope’s), can be nothing other than rife with fallacies.

Jesus passed his wisdom onto the Apostles. The Apostles were not just some local jews, they were close friends and followers of Jesus. His Apostles passed the wisdom onto us through the Bible and the Church. The wisdom has been interpreted quite well.

 

[anon5216]

Jesus passed his wisdom onto the Apostles. The Apostles were not just some local jews, they were close friends and followers of Jesus. His Apostles passed the wisdom onto us through the Bible and the Church. The wisdom has been interpreted quite well.

So all your close friends can correctly understand everything you tell them in your area of professional and/or personal expertise? And for that matter, you can understand everything they might relate regarding their areas of professional and/or personal expertise.

Try an experiment.
Get together over several weeks and one person per week give a 30 minute oral presentation in their area of expertise. Video each presentation but no one gets access to the recording during the experiment.

No one takes notes or records anything for their personal use.

Wait until the day before the next meeting and only then everyone writes down what they remember.

After everyone has had their turn presenting and writing their recollections, take a day to review and assess.

For each subject, first everyone reads their recollection aloud, and then watch the video. It should be quite entertaining.

Now, I know the first response is: “But the Holy Spirit guarantees that everyone got it right with regard to Jesus”. You can believe the Church when those humans in charge of it tell you this is true if you want. That doesn’t make it true.

They’ll say that if it isn’t true it would invalidate the entire religion, but that isn’t true just because people believe it either. The only thing that could be objectively concluded is that the power structure of the Church leadership is undermined. It doesn’t mean the spiritual usefulness of biblical recollections becomes null and void.

 

[frankblahnik]

So all your close friends can correctly understand everything you tell them in your area of professional and/or personal expertise? And for that matter, you can understand everything they might relate regarding their areas of professional and/or personal expertise.

Try an experiment.
Get together over several weeks and one person per week give a 30 minute oral presentation in their area of expertise. Video each presentation but no one gets access to the recording during the experiment.

No one takes notes or records anything for their personal use.

Wait until the day before the next meeting and only then everyone writes down what they remember.

After everyone has had their turn presenting and writing their recollections, take a day to review and assess.

For each subject, first everyone reads their recollection aloud, and then watch the video. It should be quite entertaining.

Now, I know the first response is: “But the Holy Spirit guarantees that everyone got it right with regard to Jesus”. You can believe the Church when those humans in charge of it tell you this is true if you want. That doesn’t make it true.

They’ll say that if it isn’t true it would invalidate the entire religion, but that isn’t true just because people believe it either. The only thing that could be objectively concluded is that the power structure of the Church leadership is undermined. It doesn’t mean the spiritual usefulness of biblical recollections becomes null and void.

Who is Jesus? What did He do? Why?

He claims to be the Son of God, come to free us from the bondage of sin. I don’t know how anyone could misinterpret such a claim. Claiming to be the Son of God in fact was what He was crucified for.

He let himself be murdered on the cross, and then rose from the dead. Once again, I don’t know how anyone could misinterpret his experience. He was seen, heard, and felt by many after He rose from the dead, and He clearly died on the cross. The Romans made sure of that. Killing was their expertise.

 

[anon5216]

Who is Jesus? What did He do? Why?

He claims to be the Son of God, come to free us from the bondage of sin. I don’t know how anyone could misinterpret such a claim. Claiming to be the Son of God in fact was what He was crucified for.

He let himself be murdered on the cross, and then rose from the dead. Once again, I don’t know how anyone could misinterpret his experience. He was seen, heard, and felt by many after He rose from the dead, and He clearly died on the cross. The Romans made sure of that. Killing was their expertise.

A) Other people claimed that Jesus claimed, etc… Why do you all assume the quotes are 100% accurate? Try my experiment and see how accurate quote recollections are after a mere week, let alone 30 years. (plus a couple thousand more of copies and translations - out of all the translations, which one is 100% accurate? - since they have differences, only one of them (and only one edition) could possibly be 100% accurate).

B) Claiming identity with God, (but not in the anthropomorphic sense that Christians interpret it), comes from Adwaita Vedanta - something it’s quite likely Jesus studied successfully at some point during the unaccounted for 18 years.

C) Two additional possibilities for the “death”.
1) Jesus knew how to go into a yogic trance - these are known to appear as if all life functioning has ceased.
2) Genuine death and rising has also happened with Indian yogis through the aeons. It may be unique to the 1st century mediterranean cultures, but it’s not unique globally.

None of this negates the spiritual value of Christianity, just the human interpretation of the details.

 

[frankblahnik]

A) Other people claimed that Jesus claimed, etc… Why do you all assume the quotes are 100% accurate? Try my experiment and see how accurate quote recollections are after a mere week, let alone 30 years. (plus a couple thousand more of copies and translations - out of all the translations, which one is 100% accurate? - since they have differences, only one of them (and only one edition) could possibly be 100% accurate).

B) Claiming identity with God, (but not in the anthropomorphic sense that Christians interpret it), comes from Adwaita Vedanta - something it’s quite likely Jesus studied successfully at some point during the unaccounted for 18 years.

C) Two additional possibilities for the “death”.
1) Jesus knew how to go into a yogic trance - these are known to appear as if all life functioning has ceased.
2) Genuine death and rising has also happened with Indian yogis through the aeons. It may be unique to the 1st century mediterranean cultures, but it’s not unique globally.

None of this negates the spiritual value of Christianity, just the human interpretation of the details.

You could be right and I respect your opinion. I don’t know everything, but I am going to follow my heart. Peace be with you.

 

[anon5216]

You could be right and I respect your opinion. I don’t know everything, but I am going to follow my heart. Peace be with you.

Regardless of our theological differences, I support your spirituality completely.

I hope that your heart leads you to the fully conscious experience of the “peace that surpasses all understanding” that you refer to in your signature, and that that peace emanates from you to all you interact with - without you even saying a word about it.

btw, Just in the off chance you’re not already familiar with it, there is a great little spiritual book (I don’t remember if it’s Catholic, but it’s definitely Christian) called “The Cloud of Unknowing”.

 

[adelore]

To answer the question, “Why didn’t Jesus write a book?”

He did through men it’s called the Bible. Got your interest? Here’s how.

All the books of the Bible we are told were written by men who had the power of the **Holy Spirit ** guiding them when they wrote the books of the Bible.

Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

Now since the Holy Spirit was guiding these men, the real Author of the Bible is Jesus.

An easier way to look at it is like this. You have office people, the boss the secterary and others in the office.

Now let’s look at Jesus as the Boss, he then tells the Secterary to take a dictation. (write down what he says) Even though the Sectereary is writing down what the Boss says to write, who really is the Author of what she’s writing?

She is only writing what the Boss (Jesus) is telling her to write. Yet the words belong to the Boss (Jesus) Thus making the Boss (Jesus) the Author of the Words, not the Secterary.

 

[anon5216]

To answer the question, “Why didn’t Jesus write a book?”

He did through men it’s called the Bible. Got your interest? Here’s how.

All the books of the Bible we are told were written by men who had the power of the **Holy Spirit ** guiding them when they wrote the books of the Bible.

Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

Now since the Holy Spirit was guiding these men, the real Author of the Bible is Jesus.

An easier way to look at it is like this. You have office people, the boss the secterary and others in the office.

Now let’s look at Jesus as the Boss, he then tells the Secterary to take a dictation. (write down what he says) Even though the Sectereary is writing down what the Boss says to write, who really is the Author of what she’s writing?

She is only writing what the Boss (Jesus) is telling her to write. Yet the words belong to the Boss (Jesus) Thus making the Boss (Jesus) the Author of the Words, not the Secterary.

I don’t believe even the most conservative Catholic theologians (including the current Pope) actually claim biblical writings as being dictation from Jesus.

Your analogy is stretching it beyond anything valid here.