Why Didn't Jesus Write?

[Atticus Finch]

Why didn't He?

He could read well so I think the assumption lends itself to believing that He could also write well. Why is it that Jesus never wrote things down himself about His ministry? If I were to go about spreading some important information (possibly a matter of eternal consequence) I'd make sure that the message would be delivered properly.

Also, a question more in humor than deliberate concern, had Jesus have written would His grammar and writing be free from error?

[Canuckster1127]

Why didn't He?

He could read well so I think the assumption lends itself to believing that He could also write well. Why is it that Jesus never wrote things down himself about His ministry? If I were to go about spreading some important information (possibly a matter of eternal consequence) I'd make sure that the message would be delivered properly.

Also, a question more in humor than deliberate concern, had Jesus have written would His grammar and writing be free from error?

Easy answer, because He chose not to do so.

More serious answer, Jesus active ministry was only about 3 years. His purpose was not to write doctrine. It was to demonstrate the love of God actively and so in his precious limited time between the declaration of his public ministry and his ascension he invested his time with his disciples and reaching and teaching many people in advance of his atoning death and resurrection.

He delegated the task of writing and preserving through his disciples and that is why 2 of them (Matthew and John) wrote Gospels and others provided direct input in the writing of the other 2 Gospels in addition to epistles and the apocalypse of John.

God used people in the past to write and preserve Scipture. Jesus was not sent to be a scribe. Jesus was the Living Word and that message was more important than the scribal duties when the Holy Spirit would and could through inspiration and the eye-witness experiences of those Jesus spent the most time with, preserve them for future generations until his second coming.

[Byblos]

Why didn't He?

He could read well so I think the assumption lends itself to believing that He could also write well. Why is it that Jesus never wrote things down himself about His ministry? If I were to go about spreading some important information (possibly a matter of eternal consequence) I'd make sure that the message would be delivered properly.

That's an excellent question. Perhaps because he was in support of oral tradition? (ok, ok, I won't go there).

Also, a question more in humor than deliberate concern, had Jesus have written would His grammar and writing be free from error?

LOL! I would think so.

[Gman]

Actually I find it kind of neat that he didn't write it all down for us... It would kind of make God more dogmatic for me in that approuch.. In other words there is a sense of trust that God has with us to let us write it all down...

G -

[Atticus Finch]

Actually I find it kind of neat that he didn't write it all down for us... It would kind of make God more dogmatic for me in that approuch.. In other words there is a sense of trust that God has with us to let us write it all down...

G -

Please don't misunderstand my post and think that I'm mocking this point.

I simply cannot wrap my head around God spreading the Gospel by word and not by writing of His own hand. When playing a game of "chinese whispers" with kids it's easy to see how quickly details may be lost after a few sources transmitted orally. It's difficult for me to imagine God coming as a man to spread the Gospel only to a few thousand people in His lifetime and relying solely on them to relay the information to the WORLD for the REST OF TIME. If I had a report to do for school I would never in a million years compile the thoughts in my head, then recite it to a group of a hundred people and expect them to write it up correctly and hand it in to the teacher. It is just a point of logic to me that one wouldn't go about such things like that. I'm not trying to insult anything but logically it seems odd in my mind to relay the most important message EVER for ALL of mankind by word alone and only to people who largely would not have understood the scriptural implications of Jesus entire purpose.

Again, I'm just typing out my thoughts as they come to me. I can't sleep at night with these questions and worries running through my mind. The Gospels reflect certain accounts from certain peoples of Jesus' life and doings. Why don't we have THE account of Jesus rather than trying to harmonize four "accounts" of the life? In all fairness, Jesus could've assigned ONE person to record everything that happened to Him and then continue after His death. Jesus could've reviewed the writings and gave his OK and said "Spread THIS to the world and let no one stray from it!" and things would be A-OKAY in the world. The problem lies for me in thinking that there's a mysteriously Man who taught to the common folk of his time and relied simply on others to (hopefully) write down his message to... save the entire human race!

Once again, these are just the thoughts which are keeping me awake when I need to be sleeping. Please don't take offense as I'm merely questioning things (which SHOULD be done until complete accuracy can be found or as close to it --- otherwise my belief would be in vain) and trying to find answers which don't rely solely on faith.

[Atticus Finch]

.

More serious answer, Jesus active ministry was only about 3 years. His

Why was this anyway? Why three years? I've read wild theories about the missing 18 years but it all remains very vague.

It's interesting to consider the amount of time someone like Billy Graham has invested in preaching what Jesus spoke when He Himself only did it for a couple of years.

[Judah]

Atticus, although our Lord once walked the earth as the historical Jesus of the New Testament, the essence of Christianity is the relationship that we each have with Him now in our hearts through faith, and the workings of the Holy Spirit as we are justified and sanctified in Him.

Had Jesus written some kind of doctrine and had scribes to make copy after copy, we might have a book not unlike the Muslims have a book. But our relationship with Christ is more than a book. It is a living thing, a journey together with Him through study of His life and teachings as they were faithfully recorded by eye witnesses and followers of Him. We encounter Him through prayer, and through study of His Word - the faithful recordings of eye witnesses - and by doing His will in our lives. Christ ministered to others; He was here to show us how to live. He is our living example, teaching by example, by doing rather than by merely writing.

Why must this concern you so much? The Gospels are full of eye witness accounts of His teaching by example, and we read of Him from these slightly different viewpoints, each one a facet of the very same jewel. We already have accounts of His words and what He did. If Jesus could trust His disciples to write truthfully about Him, what are the grounds for your objections? Remember, they wrote with the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit who brought to mind all that needed to be remembered.

Our knowledge of Him also comes through our own prayer life as we spend time talking with Him on our knees, waiting on Him, listening to Him as He speaks within our hearts. Our faith is more than what is written in a book. It is a living faith, our spiritual lives deepening and being enriched by prayerful study of these written accounts, and by the work of the Holy Spirit in making us more like Him, increasingly receptive to Him, as we are obedient to His Will and allow this work to happen.

Christianity is not about a book. It is about a real and living relationship with our Lord and Saviour.

[Atticus Finch]

Thank you for the response.

Why must this concern you so much?

Why must this concern me so much? That's a strange question. This is a point in which I imagine many believers and unbelievers have struggled to grasp.

The Gospels are full of eye witness accounts of His teaching by example, and we read of Him from these slightly different viewpoints, each one a facet of the very same jewel. We already have accounts of His words and what He did. If Jesus could trust His disciples to write truthfully about Him, what are the grounds for your objections? Remember, they wrote with the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit who brought to mind all that needed to be remembered.

Peter denied Jesus by word. Judas denied or betrayed Him by action and word. Isn't it logical to assume that they had it in them still to look for their own benefit rather than for that of people not yet lived who would later read their writings? I struggle with this point with an uncle of mine. He will tell me that I should rely on faith that the NT is the true account of Jesus. But those writings were selected BY MEN and not just plopped down from the sky in a bundle. And with all of our dealings in the world it's quite easy to see that people are rarely perfect in their intentions and actions.

Our knowledge of Him also comes through our own prayer life as we spend time talking with Him on our knees, waiting on Him, listening to Him as He speaks within our hearts. Our faith is more than what is written in a book. It is a living faith, our spiritual lives deepening and being enriched by prayerful study of these written accounts, and by the work of the Holy Spirit in making us more like Him, increasingly receptive to Him, as we are obedient to His Will and allow this work to happen.

But it is what is written in the book which shapes your faith. If you grew up without human companion I doubt that you would be aware of the theology in the New Testament. Indeed it is a living faith ONCE the major theology of the book is understood and left to sit in writing. Jesus isn't the only key to developing a keen spiritual life. People of varying religions may be much more spiritually advanced and enlightened than ourselves here.

[Gman]

Ok Atticus... No problem... I understand, I think I know where you are coming from.. In one way we could say that it is wrong to presume that man simply just started writing things down as the way that they understood it. But I think the Bible makes it clear that these same prophets (who wrote the bible) were actually moved by the Holy Spirit to write down exactly what God wanted. Here is one such verse..

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

There are many others like this if you want me to get them for you...

But I think the best evidence we have for the Bible is the framework... That is your real evidence. Things such as seeing Jesus written in both the old and new testements, blood atonement, the love of God, prophecies... etc. Those things are simply mind blowing for the believer, at least for me. The entire scripture (or Bible) fits like a hand in a glove... And those things for the most part are perfect.

G -

[Canuckster1127]

Atticus,

A question in answer to your own question.

If God's highest purpose were to put a written book in our hands, then why would God send Jesus to write it?

Why wouldn't God simply deliver it to us completed and have done with it?

When you've considered that, then if Jesus did not come primarily to give us his spoken or written word, as important as that might be, then why do you suppose Jesus came?

Bart

[Gman]

Atticus... I forgot to mention. This is where you will see the Trinity in motion. When the Bible says that they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write things down, what this is actually saying is that they were move by..... (I'll let you fill in the words here). And if .... told them to say this then who actually wrote it?

G -

[Judah]

Thanks, Canuckster...sometimes we can be so busy looking around the edges that we momentarily forget about the centre. Jesus was not sent among us to write a book, but for a far more important purpose - one that no-one else at all could accomplish. Writing a book pales into insignificance by comparison.

I am often noticing how we ask questions that are formulated on the premise "if I were God, this is how I would do it - so why doesn't He do it that way?" as though He should.
I see that as tackling the situation from the wrong end. We risk comparing God with ourselves and having Him come up short, rather than fully realizing it is our own deficiencies we are seeing.
To understand the mind of God, to the small extent that it is possible at all, we need to have a reverence for His way of doing something and in all humility seek to know the reasons why it is far superior to our own.
His way will most certainly be superior where we find there is a difference.
Sometimes we are not given an answer right away, as though He wants us to simply trust Him first. Then in time, His good time, we may come to know.
We should continue to ask our questions, but not be dismayed if the answer is not made obvious right away.

[Ashley]

So far as I took a glance at the posts, I am inclined to think that:


(A) probably Jesus did write something (about his teachings or some descriptive accounts like diary) but it has unfortunately never been found, except the four gospels putting together in NT and other gospels which the Vatican office never took as his revelation or irrelevant things.

In fact, at least I was never told Jesus didn't write anything. We can neither prove it nor falsify it.

(B) Even if there were Jesus's handwriting, as long as He was a criminal in Roman law (Pontius Pilate ordered the death penalty), crucified and it was Roman government policy to suppress heretic force against the Caesar it was not unusual if the Roman soldiers had ransacked Jesus home in Bethlehem or anywhere he left his writings and destroyed them at once to stop the heresy, either in compliance with the policy or in appeasing the Jewish council. Who knows? remember the disciples hid away after the Crucifixion.

(C) Jesus was probably too busy to write down anything. In Gethsemane we could observe Jesus even did not sleep but prayed fervently. One can envisage Jesus almost did not rest for writing down anything but to heal, to teach, to travel to meet someone...

(D) In John's Gospel, it is quite obvious that Jesus pre-destined His fate and He knew what would happen. (likewise He might know your suspicion about "why didn't he write?" which we might take as a deliberate strategy to make us doubt so that, "have ears but we can't hear, have eyes but we can't see, otherwise I might heal him" - conversion! frankly, scripture is something we never know if it is true unless we try Absence of His writings, probably, is a temptation for us to doubt so that we have faith instead of secular evidence. It is the core-content of religion.

Any thoughts?

[bizzt]

So far as I took a glance at the posts, I am inclined to think that:


(A) probably Jesus did write something (about his teachings or some descriptive accounts like diary) but it has unfortunately never been found, except the four gospels putting together in NT and other gospels which the Vatican office never took as his revelation or irrelevant things.

In fact, at least I was never told Jesus didn't write anything. We can neither prove it nor falsify it.

(B) Even if there were Jesus's handwriting, as long as He was a criminal in Roman law (Pontius Pilate ordered the death penalty), crucified and it was Roman government policy to suppress heretic force against the Caesar it was not unusual if the Roman soldiers had ransacked Jesus home in Bethlehem or anywhere he left his writings and destroyed them at once to stop the heresy, either in compliance with the policy or in appeasing the Jewish council. Who knows? remember the disciples hid away after the Crucifixion.

(C) Jesus was probably too busy to write down anything. In Gethsemane we could observe Jesus even did not sleep but prayed fervently. One can envisage Jesus almost did not rest for writing down anything but to heal, to teach, to travel to meet someone...

(D) In John's Gospel, it is quite obvious that Jesus pre-destined His fate and He knew what would happen. (likewise He might know your suspicion about "why didn't he write?" which we might take as a deliberate strategy to make us doubt so that, "have ears but we can't hear, have eyes but we can't see, otherwise I might heal him" - conversion! frankly, scripture is something we never know if it is true unless we try Absence of His writings, probably, is a temptation for us to doubt so that we have faith instead of secular evidence. It is the core-content of religion.

Any thoughts?

A) First you are correct we do not know if Jesus even wrote anything about himself but being that the Apostles were quite close to Jesus and did not know of these writings or mention these writings tends to make one think that he did not write anything about himself

b) The NT gives us the idea that Jesus did not have a home that he called his own. He was constantly travelling and sleeping at other Peoples homes. Where he was at home they did not want him and I would guess he stayed with his Parents or close friends and relatives.

c) Now that is something I can agree with

d) See I don't see a problem with the fact he did not write. He was not there to write about the Life he was there to walk the life. The apostles therefore were there to write about that walk. I am sure you already knew that from the conversation above

[Atticus Finch]

Atticus,

If God's highest purpose were to put a written book in our hands, then why would God send Jesus to write it?

Bart

I understand the logic behind your question. The problem, however, and as I realize, it is not that it's God's purpose we're reviewing and debating but rather the means in which He acted it out. If God planned to beget a Son (Jesus) and that this man would be great at would through His death clear the people's sins, then why did He only allow this man three years to accomplish his worldly purpose of non-worldly teachings? Isn't it true that while Jesus' life was known to many in that region, in comparison to a major event of today's world it would have only been a mere murmour which travelled of the man's life?

As my reasoning and logic wishes to tell me, God would not come to earth in the body of a man (whilst still remaining fully God, etc -- by the way this is such a difficult point to grasp theologically) and only be known to a certain group of people and not that many at all before the word spread. We have so many accounts of Jesus' life; the few that we know best and then the "others" which present a totally different view of Jesus and his teachings and his life. What would happen if the Council of Nicea had chosen not the books which we know now? They had the decision to shape and define christianity for all ages to come. The book we hold now we call "Holy" and "Divinely Inspired" because an inspiration alone is from the mind whereas a Divine inspiration is straight from God to a person. When I read Paul's contributions I feel a simple human inspirational writing. Many people are not so sure about Paul. Thomas Jefferson wasn't either.

If the Bible was collected by men as they sought to find the inspired writings how can we fully trust that the christian doctrine and theology which we follow is not a man-made one and not the Divine one? I read that the final decision for the NT books was decided by throwing the books on a table and the ones which fell off weren't left in. That's probably a rumour but it still seems relevant when looking at the NT objectively. Jude: cool name but is that letter really needed in our Bible? It takes up less than a page as does a few of John's writings. It seems something of a random choice when looking at it. I can't deny this anymore.

People say that the entire Bible is the literal inspiration from God. They say this even when authors of the NT are in grave doubt as to being the real writers. From my observations of the world and as I live the hermit's life, I've seen that everyone has an agenda. I don't watch the news because it is simply the view of someone who wishes to express their own view. People will often say to children, "Don't play with that kid. He stole an eraser from school! He's a bad kid!" but what is this really? It probably has more roots in some petty conflict between the parents of both children. Everything we were taught as children was based on the truths which our parents had gained through their lives. It goes in circles. We will pass on to our kids what we believe and they to theirs. There doesn't seem to be any objective reality or morality or truth which one person can say and another agree on. Christians refute other religions but those of those religions also refute christianity. Can we place a patent on truth? If you say this is the truth then how can I being of different mind follow along?

If three people lay on a hill and observe the clouds in the sky they will each form their imaginative opinions of the shapes in which theu perceive the clouds to take. Only once person #1 expresses his views will #2 and #3 conform their ideas to suit it. Person #3 might influence #1 to change his mind and then #2 will follow suit once again, ever playing the sheep and conformist to others. Only when their own views are not spoken can they each establish their own and personal objective truth. It becomes subjective once the other people chime in with their thoughts. Such is the case with religions. To one person he has the truth, to another it is a fabrication and a lie. Which is truth?

Everybody has an agenda which they are pushing ever so slightly. We are told in the Bible to reject and beware of false teachings. Isn't this the one simply and major tactic in locking people into a scam of a sort? Imagine a small cult which revolves around the practice of hopping on one leg:

Main Cult Leader: "So as you see, you young and impressionable ones, our system of hopping on one leg in praise of our Deity is better than the practice of other false religions. It's really quite simple. People use both legs all day, to show respect we limit ourselves to one leg and hop. The Creator loves this.

Curious Youth: "Sir, this seems like something of your imaginations. Especially since you don't have a right leg as it was blown off in war..."

Main Cult Leader: "Don't be ridiculous! Have you been listening to those false religions and false teachings of the unknowing?"

Curious Youth: " Sir, I thought that using logic to understand things was a beautiful thing in being a wise person?"

Main Cult Leader: "Son, always question. Always. But never, never question our teaching. Our teaching is God-given and God-governed. How can you doubt such things? Are you too an unbeliever and a one who follows false teachings? Now, get on one leg and hop, dammit!"

Curious Youth: *hops*

I bet that every religion teaches to follow only that one and to avoid the false teachings of others. What makes the Bible different to this? Paul seems the most avid in proclaiming that message. Is it not somewhat reasonable to say that religion is unreasonable unless one receives a personal revelation of the Divine? Who can trust someone from the past who has no history?