DT761138 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Apparently those of us who like to read the Bible are somewhat nosey since we like to read others' mail. I think Paul of Tarsus would be shocked at the relatively high view many Christians give his letters he wrote. It's true that collecting his texts in the early Christian community was normative, but the seperation of these letters out into some kind of "Word of God" is something that early Christians never foresaw. The whole concept of "Word of God" for the Bible is nothing but later polemics and propaganda, especially by the Protestants to use against Catholics. However, originally Christianity was not strictly speaking a religion of a book, the masses of Christians were generally semi-literate and didn't own books. In that context, its actually understandable that somebody like Jesus wouldn't have written down much. Books weren't the primary way ideas were spread in the ancient world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Rabbi's rarely wrote down their thoughts back then, but disciples often did. We don't have anything written down by Socrates, either. All your objection does is discredit a certain kind of fundamentalist Christian mindset, there are still other Christian points of view that would withstand this kind of reasoning (some think that Jesus didn't come into the world to give instructions so much as serve as an example or accomplish a victory or work). Framing Christianity as primarily propositional truth is the attitude of the fundamentalist or conservative evgangelical, but there's plenty of more savy Christians that see the narrative dimensions to their faith. This is actually rather telling. If rabbis tended to not write their thoughts down, then this makes the case that, even if a historical Jesus existed, he wasn't anything more than a human rabbi. If he had truly been the son of God as he described himself, he would surely have made sure that his life and his teachings were documented far better than they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Jesus is god and god only communicates with humans through voodoo, that still quiet voice and vessels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholiKitty Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Playing Devil's Advocate today: (So much irony) So, supposing the nature of Christ were he's in full access to all of his divine traits (miracles in the gospel would indicate at least limited access), then Jesus would likely have at least a feel for the future. Indeed, he even predicted the future quite a bit right before he died. Given this, Jesus could act and preach in a way that his intended message would be propagated without any of it being written down directly (reminds me vaguely of the Oracle in the Matrix Trilogy). So, through God-magic, at a certain point or points in time or all points in time, the gospel message is exactly what and where it was intended to be. -end- Unless you think that free will is to God what tachyons are to Doctor Manhattan. Then Jesus gave it his best shot and hoped that everything would turn out alright. Maybe he knew enough about human nature to trust that the core message would get through; maybe if he was written down word-for-word, people would get caught up in the words and wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees. ...more so than it happens now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think if Jesus could see into the future, I would hope he would have made it clear to fundamentalist baptists that women wearing pants is not a sin, and made it clear to all of the evangelical denominations that drinking alcohol isn't a sin. Maybe he also could have mentioned that he never expected the Gentiles who believed in him to pay the Hebrew tithe. Instead, he gave all kinds of vague non-instructions like "You must be born again," with no indication of how the hell one would do that even if one wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Apparently those of us who like to read the Bible are somewhat nosey since we like to read others' mail. I think Paul of Tarsus would be shocked at the relatively high view many Christians give his letters he wrote. It's true that collecting his texts in the early Christian community was normative, but the seperation of these letters out into some kind of "Word of God" is something that early Christians never foresaw. The whole concept of "Word of God" for the Bible is nothing but later polemics and propaganda, especially by the Protestants to use against Catholics. However, originally Christianity was not strictly speaking a religion of a book, the masses of Christians were generally semi-literate and didn't own books. In that context, its actually understandable that somebody like Jesus wouldn't have written down much. Books weren't the primary way ideas were spread in the ancient world. I completely agree. Paul's authentic letters were for specific communities and not for us. I doubt Paul wrote his letter to the Romans to also be instructional to those of the Corinthian communities. I think Evangelicals and other strict Christians put too much burden on Jesus Christ. As Paul Toscano said "Perhaps faith is to give God the benefit of the doubt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 This is really more of a rhetorical question, since I can think of a couple of answers myself, but the question occurred to me while I was reading the "Ouroboros" thread in The Lion's Den. If Jesus had really wanted us to know what he thought, to understand what he was teaching, and to instruct us how to follow him, then why didn't he write his own gospel to set everything straight in his own words? If he was truly God in the flesh of a human, then he knew full well how to read and write, so illiteracy is not an excuse; even the gospels portray Jesus as reading and writing at times. If his teaching was to be so important to humankind, why would God allow it to become so twisted and misinterpreted because it was only written in secondhand accounts decades later? I have seen a number of people question why there are no firsthand historical accounts of Jesus, but I have never seen anyone ask why he just didn't write a few things down himself, instead of leaving behind a jumbled mess of parables and vague mystic statements scattered throughout a number of texts by various authors. One would think that if such a thing existed, people would have made great effort to preserve and copy it. Surely God could see into the future and see this would be a problem someday, so it's odd that he neglected to write it all down at the time. It strikes me as odd that I never thought to ask this question the entire time I was a Christian, but it seems like a very obvious thing to ask now. Yeah, and on top of that, why didn't he invent the printing press to spread his gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 "Why Didn't Jesus Write His Own Gospel?" Possibly for the same reason Harry Potter didn't write his own books. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 "Why Didn't Jesus Write His Own Gospel?" Possibly for the same reason Harry Potter didn't write his own books. Yes, that was one of my conclusions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Playing Devil's Advocate today: (So much irony) So, supposing the nature of Christ were he's in full access to all of his divine traits (miracles in the gospel would indicate at least limited access), then Jesus would likely have at least a feel for the future. Indeed, he even predicted the future quite a bit right before he died. Given this, Jesus could act and preach in a way that his intended message would be propagated without any of it being written down directly (reminds me vaguely of the Oracle in the Matrix Trilogy). So, through God-magic, at a certain point or points in time or all points in time, the gospel message is exactly what and where it was intended to be. -end- Unless you think that free will is to God what tachyons are to Doctor Manhattan. Then Jesus gave it his best shot and hoped that everything would turn out alright. Maybe he knew enough about human nature to trust that the core message would get through; maybe if he was written down word-for-word, people would get caught up in the words and wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees. ...more so than it happens now. No, it is much worse than that. This was suppose to be part of the plan from the all-knowing God-The-Father. God knew that people would be confused and God decided that this was the only way He would allow for these people to be saved from God's torture fetish. And you have to call it "good" and "just" or else you will be tortured forever too. Christian theology is rubbish. You could sail an oil tanker though the plot holes. Saul of Tarsus invented modern Christianity and he did a poor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yask Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 How about this. Since the Biblical Jesus didn't exist, isn't that the reason for why there's no gospel written by his own hand?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonForever Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 This is really more of a rhetorical question, since I can think of a couple of answers myself, but the question occurred to me while I was reading the "Ouroboros" thread in The Lion's Den. If Jesus had really wanted us to know what he thought, to understand what he was teaching, and to instruct us how to follow him, then why didn't he write his own gospel to set everything straight in his own words? If he was truly God in the flesh of a human, then he knew full well how to read and write, so illiteracy is not an excuse; even the gospels portray Jesus as reading and writing at times. If his teaching was to be so important to humankind, why would God allow it to become so twisted and misinterpreted because it was only written in secondhand accounts decades later? I have seen a number of people question why there are no firsthand historical accounts of Jesus, but I have never seen anyone ask why he just didn't write a few things down himself, instead of leaving behind a jumbled mess of parables and vague mystic statements scattered throughout a number of texts by various authors. One would think that if such a thing existed, people would have made great effort to preserve and copy it. Surely God could see into the future and see this would be a problem someday, so it's odd that he neglected to write it all down at the time. It strikes me as odd that I never thought to ask this question the entire time I was a Christian, but it seems like a very obvious thing to ask now. That was a key issue for me. If Jesus was the answer, what the hell did I need Paul for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted November 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 5, 2011 I just researched what the christians are saying about this issue out there in internet land........Here's a few: Ouote: because he didn't come to write a book. He came to bring salvation and open the gates of Heaven, thank God for that! But then he also instituted a Church, that was given special privilege to teach his Word, spoken and written, to the rest of the world for all eternity until his coming, without error. '' Quote: ''The lack of direct writings from Christ also calls us more deeply into our Faith. Of course there are those who would STILL not believe, even if authentic writings turned up tomorrow but the lack of them calls us to deepen our Faith in Christ and in His Church'' Quote:.'' Jesus as Son of God didn't need to write a book. Books are written about Him. Why? Because of His greatness, His message, His miracles, His teaching, His Crucifxion, His resurrection, etc....St John says - no book could contain all He said and did.'' Quote: ''Jesus was the word''. Could you imagine if Jesus wrote the entire Bible Himself - unbelievers could even say "He made all that up". Jesus gave us witnesses by allowing others to write about His Life and Mission''. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Wow. That would be hilarious if it wasn't also horribly pathetic. I can't imagine how much crap you had to wade through to pull those quotes, Margee. You must have an iron constitution, or something. Thanks for taking one for the team! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Yeah, and on top of that, why didn't he invent the printing press to spread his gospel. It wouldn't have been hard for the creator of the universe and it sure would have helped out the Council of Nicaea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think Paul of Tarsus would be shocked at the relatively high view many Christians give his letters he wrote. It's true that collecting his texts in the early Christian community was normative, but the seperation of these letters out into some kind of "Word of God" is something that early Christians never foresaw. Me too. I think he would be shocked and appalled that his letters to different churches are now part of the "infallible and inerrant Word of God". He never intended that - and I believe he even stated outright that he was not speaking for God in one of his letters - I forget which one. Also, some of the letters attributed to him are now considered by scholars to have never been written by him, and some are questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Me too. I think he would be shocked and appalled that his letters to different churches are now part of the "infallible and inerrant Word of God". He never intended that - and I believe he even stated outright that he was not speaking for God in one of his letters - I forget which one. Behold - The infallible Word of the Lord: 1 Cor 7:25a "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord . . . " What happens when the Word of God says that it is not the Word of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT761138 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 "Word of God" I figured in the end is just rhetoric. It has no real meaning, because even if the Bible is the word of God, it's subject to human interpretation. In the end, I find the concept of the "Word of God" completely historically naive about how the Bible actually came to be. The Bible is not a single book, its 66 (or more if you are Catholic) individual books that an authority somewhere said "these are OK books"... in the end completely arbitrary. The real issues should be with church and religious institutions since they are the ones that tell you what the Bible means, they provide the key ring to decode it all and give meaning to words like "Word of God"" and the rest of the rhetoric. Are they trustworthy? I'd say no, none are infallible, you should never hand over your mind or conscience to somebody else to have them do it all for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts