Did Jesus leave any message in writing ?

anymore

Occasionally when I am thinking about biblical matters, I wonder if Jesus used writing as a means of communication and if not why not ?
The three monotheistic religions rely on the written word for their authenticity and authority and so we have the Bible, Torah, Koran etc and a great deal of time and energy has been devoted to interpreting them.
So it would seem only natural that Jesus would have used writing as a means of communicating his message.
So my question is why didnt Jesus leave us any message in in his own writing ?

Fanny Cradock

1) He had more important things to do.
2) What we have is sufficient.

getz

anymore wrote: »

Occasionally when I am thinking about biblical matters, I wonder if Jesus used writing as a means of communication and if not why not ?
The three monotheistic religions rely on the written word for their authenticity and authority and so we have the Bible, Torah, Koran etc and a great deal of time and energy has been devoted to interpreting them.
So it would seem only natural that Jesus would have used writing as a means of communicating his message.
So my question is why didnt Jesus leave us any message in in his own writing ?

he may well have done,the vatican has many things locked away,near the end of the war there was a vatican panic that the russians would reach them before the allies,

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

1) He had more important things to do.
2) What we have is sufficient.

More important than leaving a record of his message !
There is nothing to suggest that he was engeaged in workor trade during his active period of preaching, so it seems unlikely that time was a factor.

anymore

getz wrote: »

he may well have done,the vatican has many things locked away,near the end of the war there was a vatican panic that the russians would reach them before the allies,

If there had been any writings by Jesus, they would certainly had been quoted at great length by the survivors of the early years and would surely had been referred to in the Gospels. I am assuming that there werent any actual writings by Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

More important than leaving a record of his message !
There is nothing to suggest that he was engeaged in workor trade during his active period of preaching, so it seems unlikely that time was a factor.

We have a record of his message. It's called the New Testament. And I never said that time was a factor. I said he had more important things to do.

philologos

Some church history if you look into Eusebius' History of the Church suggests that Jesus did write, albeit not much. I may look into the reference if I get time. There doesn't seem to be much that supports it though.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We have a record of his message. It's called the New Testament. And I never said that time was a factor. I said he had more important things to do.

If I may quote from Wikipedia :
The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of works written at different times by various authors. In almost all Christian traditions today, the New Testament consists of 27 books. The original texts were written beginning around AD 50 in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire where they were composed. All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than the mid-2nd century.[1]
1.^ See the standard New Testament introductions listed below under "Further reading": Goodspeed, Kümmel, Duling and Perrin, Koester, Conzelmann and Lindemann, Brown, and Ehrman

What I am referring to is of course Jesus's own writings which record his thoughts and message. It seems to me to be a very important question to ask. It just strikes as very odd that a Jewish person, and obviously Jesus was brought up in the Jewish tradition, with its own rich tradition of the written word, would not commit some thoughts to writing. And I am wondering why it does not appeared to have happened. I suppose one possibility is that Jesus may have been illiterate, but I don't know if that is true.

philologos

According to the New Testament Jesus wouldn't have been illiterate because he read from the Torah scrolls in the synagogues at Nazareth and Capernaum.

getz

anymore wrote: »

If there had been any writings by Jesus, they would certainly had been quoted at great length by the survivors of the early years and would surely had been referred to in the Gospels. I am assuming that there werent any actual writings by Jesus.

all male jews were educated [not females] we do know jesus did write, but not what he wrote,john 8;6 ,you must remember much of the early christian evidence and folk law was rejected by the roman church,locked away or destroyed.

anymore

philologos wrote: »

Some church history if you look into Eusebius' History of the Church suggests that Jesus did write, albeit not much. I may look into the reference if I get time. There doesn't seem to be much that supports it though.

Thanks for that, it would be interesting to find some concrete evidence that he did.

mcmoustache

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

1) He had more important things to do.
2) What we have is sufficient.

That seems rather dismissive.

The question by the OP is pretty fair. I think it highly unlikely that Jesus would never have written anything. Maybe not a parable but perhaps a shopping list or instructions on how to make a cabinet or even cue cards for the sermon on the mount.

I would expect that unless he took care to burn everything that he wrote, that someone would have collected his 'trash'. By 'trash' I mean souvenirs like drumsticks, plecks or setlist at a concert. Given his status it's surprising that none of these writings has made it to the 21st century public..

Fanny Cradock

mcmoustache wrote: »

That seems rather dismissive.

The question by the OP is pretty fair.

But I didn't say it wasn't fair. I gave reasons why we have no such writings.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I didn't say it wasn't fair. I gave reasons why we have no such writings.

You didnt really ! You said :
1) He had more important things to do.
2) What we have is sufficient.

In relation to 1. this is clearly a personal judgement by yourself for which you offer no evidence and to be honest, it desont seem to make any sense !
2. In relation to 2, how could writings by other people, produced long after Jesus's death be a substitute for actaul writing by Jesus ?

antiskeptic

anymore wrote: »

In relation to 2, how could writings by other people, produced long after Jesus's death be a substitute for actaul writing by Jesus ?

Would it make any difference? Consider:

1) Nt author claims that he is reporting the words of Jesus. That claim requires that the author either heard the words themselves and remembers them accurately. Or he heard from someone who heard the words themselves and remembers them accurately. Or God inspired the author.

None of those claims is verifiable

2) Jesus writes something down and those writings are included in the canon. There would be no way of verifying that Jesus actually wrote those words either.


I can believe the first on the same basis as the second so have access to what Jesus said either way.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

You didnt really ! You said :
1) He had more important things to do.
2) What we have is sufficient.

In relation to 1. this is clearly a personal judgement by yourself for which you offer no evidence and to be honest, it desont seem to make any sense !
2. In relation to 2, how could writings by other people, produced long after Jesus's death be a substitute for actaul writing by Jesus ?

And why does reason 1 not make any sense? Saying as much is clearly a personal judgement for which you offer no evidence

Ultimately Jesus' ministry had one reason - through his death and resurrection he was to be the first fruits of new creation (read up on Christian eschatology if you want to know more about this). People either believed that the was the Son of Man foretold in the OT or he was a charlatan. Writing his thoughts down (to a what I gather would have been a semi or entirely illiterate audience) would not have changed this and would have served no purpose when actions speak louder than words. Whether Jesus wrote papyrus after papyrus of whether he wrote nothing doesn't change the claim of Christianity - the Bible (which reveals the person of Jesus) is sufficient for salvation. It was the followers of Christ who were told to be fishers of men.

But let's be honest here. At root you are deeply suspicious that we have no writings from Jesus and noting anyone can say will shift that suspicion.

anymore

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would it make any difference? Consider:

1) Nt author claims that he is reporting the words of Jesus. That claim requires that the author either heard the words themselves and remembers them accurately. Or he heard from someone who heard the words themselves and remembers them accurately. Or God inspired the author.

None of those claims is verifiable

2) Jesus writes something down and those writings are included in the canon. There would be no way of verifying that Jesus actually wrote those words either.

So are you saying that the Bible is meaningless due to the difficulty of verifying the various events in it ?

antiskeptic

anymore wrote: »

So are you saying that the Bible is meaningless due to the difficulty of verifying the various events in it ?

No. I'm saying that both the NT and any of Jesus' writings would have equal meaning based, as that meaning is, on faith. If you've got faith then you beleve the NT is Jesus words and don't need his actual own writings in order to glean what he thought. If you've no faith then you wouldn't believe you had Jesus' writings even if you actually had them.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And why does reason 1 not make any sense? Saying as much is clearly a personal judgement for which you offer no evidence

Ultimately Jesus' ministry had one reason - through his death and resurrection he was to be the first fruits of new creation (read up on Christian eschatology if you want to know more about this). People either believed that the was the Son of Man foretold in the OT or he was a charlatan. Writing his thoughts down (to a what I gather would have been a semi or entirely illiterate audience) would not have changed this and would have served no purpose when actions speak louder than words. Whether Jesus wrote papyrus after papyrus of whether he wrote nothing doesn't change the claim of Christianity - the Bible (which reveals the person of Jesus) is sufficient for salvation. It was the followers of Christ who were told to be fishers of men.

But let's be honest here. At root you are deeply suspicious that we have no writings from Jesus and noting anyone can say will shift that suspicion.

You are quite right that I was making a value judgement regarding my observations on your note 1. and as you are taking it in good spirit :P, I have to admit I did briefly wonder if you were being sarcastic at Jesus's expense - in truth he seems to waited quite a long time before starting his ministry. What on earth was he doing in the meantime ? Sowing wild oats ? :P
But the point is that writing his message down would have helped in disseminating the message and would have been in keeping with the great written tradition of his jewish religion. As philologos posted, he read from the Torah scrolls and presumably he learned to read as a child and so too would many of his contemporaries. The point of writing down his message would of course also have been of assitance in preaching to semi or illiterate audience as they would have been accustomed to the idea of a literate person reading edicts etc on their behalf.
Whan you refer the claim of christianity, you ignore the fact that christianity is a fractured religion with most of the divisions resulting directly from differing interpretations of the gospels and/or what jesus is believed to have said or meant ! How did the first split in the Church arise ? Over a disagreement on the Holy Spirit; if I may quote from an Orthodox site :
" Toward the end of the 6th century, a council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("Filioque" in Latin.)

We objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son "
And we could if necessary go on and examone how other splits in the Church arose over interpretations and meanings. So anyone looking for salvation is faced with different paths along which to travel !

user1842

I too find it hard to understand why Jesus did not write down his message.

If he was the son of God surely he would have know the best way to convey his thoughts to futures generations would be through the written word.

Why allow his very important message to be written down second hand by others to be possibly misconstrued (we dont know if it has been or not)

The written word is not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than a second hand account.

This question always bugged me. Jesus should have know how to communicate his message to everyone, not just the people around him. He came to save us all, not just his immediate circle.

anymore

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I too find it hard to understand why Jesus did not write down his message.

If he was the son of God surely he would have know the best way to convey his thoughts to futures generations would be through the written word.

Why allow his very important message to be written down second hand by others to be possibly misconstrued (we dont know if it has been or not)

The written word is not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than a second hand account.

This question always bugged me. Jesus should have know how to communicate his message to everyone, not just the people around him. He came to save us all, not just his immediate circle.

Thank you for post and i am glad that I am not the only one curious. It slighly annoys me to hear various clerics talking about making religion more meaningful or wondering why so many people are turned off religion, when it is quite hard to get what seem to me ordinary questions answered or even taken seriousily.

PDN

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I too find it hard to understand why Jesus did not write down his message.

If he was the son of God surely he would have know the best way to convey his thoughts to futures generations would be through the written word.

Why allow his very important message to be written down second hand by others to be possibly misconstrued (we dont know if it has been or not)

The written word is not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than a second hand account.

This question always bugged me. Jesus should have know how to communicate his message to everyone, not just the people around him. He came to save us all, not just his immediate circle.

This is really missing the point of Jesus.

He did not come to earth to give us a set of rules to live by, or even to leave us a 'message'. He came to atone for our sins through His sacrificial death, and to make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him.

Therefore He established relationships with others and they wrote down their experiences so we too can enter into such a relationship.

user1842

PDN wrote: »

This is really missing the point of Jesus.

He did not come to earth to give us a set of rules to live by, or even to leave us a 'message'. He came to atone for our sins through His sacrificial death, and to make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him.

Therefore He established relationships with others and they wrote down their experiences so we too can enter into such a relationship.

Thats exactly my point PDN, how do we know he did this? We have only got other peoples words to go on. Why did he not show to all future generations a written message. Are you even a small bit worried that his message might have got the purple monkey dishwasher treatment.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

But the point is that writing his message down would have helped in disseminating the message and would have been in keeping with the great written tradition of his jewish religion. As philologos posted, he read from the Torah scrolls and presumably he learned to read as a child and so too would many of his contemporaries. The point of writing down his message would of course also have been of assitance in preaching to semi or illiterate audience as they would have been accustomed to the idea of a literate person reading edicts etc on their behalf.

You didn't engage with my claims with regards to Jesus' mission (I would contend that it wasn't primarily to gain converts - that's what his disciples are for) which I think is important. Aside from this, I really don't see the problem. I'll say it again. What the Bible presents us with is sufficient for salvation through Jesus. It doesn't pretend to answer all our questions or end all disagreement.

anymore wrote: »

And we could if necessary go on and examone how other splits in the Church arose over interpretations and meanings. So anyone looking for salvation is faced with different paths along which to travel !

I don't see how Jesus writing for three years would have avoided schisms and widely divergent interpretations. All of our interpretations are localised in our own brains. This is part of being human.

PDN

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Thats exactly my point PDN, how do we know he did this? We have only got other peoples words to go on.

Because, unless you're a total nerd, it takes more than a written message to have a relationship with someone.

Others shared their experiences of having a relationship with Jesus, and what they tell us is designed to prompt us to seek a similar relationship with Him.

Are you even a small bit worried that his message might have got the purple monkey dishwasher treatment.

No, not in the slightest.

antiskeptic

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Thats exactly my point PDN, how do we know he did this? We have only got other peoples words to go on. Why did he not show to all future generations a written message. Are you even a small bit worried that his message might have got the purple monkey dishwasher treatment.

Whose word would you be going on in concluding it was Jesus' own written words you were reading - in the case you had such a document in your hand?

user1842

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whose word would you be going on in concluding it was Jesus' own written words you were reading - in the case you had such a document in your hand?

Your right you would not know but it would be nice to have been given the option to believe his words if he wrote them down or not.

PDN

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Your right you would not know but it would be nice to have been given the option to believe his words if he wrote them down or not.

Is there any real difference between the following?

a) Choosing to believe Jesus' spoken words which were then written down by others.

b) Choosing to believe Jesus' written words which were then copied by others.

Fanny Cradock

Well, I'm afraid that there is little suggestion that he did write anything. So you can either let this continue to be an issue, or like countless Christians throughout history you don't let it be an issue.

user1842

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, I'm afraid that there is little suggestion that he did write anything. So you can either let this continue to be an issue, or like countless Christians throughout history you don't let it be an issue.

Its not an issue but more a curiosity. I suppose Jesus would have know that he did not need to write down his words. He knew it would spread correctly to future generations.

I suppose there is no burden of proof here, its a question of faith so the point becomes mute then maybe.

Slav

anymore wrote: »

Occasionally when I am thinking about biblical matters, I wonder if Jesus used writing as a means of communication and if not why not ?
The three monotheistic religions rely on the written word for their authenticity and authority and so we have the Bible, Torah, Koran etc and a great deal of time and energy has been devoted to interpreting them.
So it would seem only natural that Jesus would have used writing as a means of communicating his message.
So my question is why didnt Jesus leave us any message in in his own writing ?

Jesus was not a teacher or prophet. He did not bring a new teaching to the world, he brought Himself (and this is the major difference from all other religions). Any written words would only be a shadow, a faded image of the Eternal Word and therefore not so important.

It's also interesting that not only Jesus did not left any writings but it looks like very few of the twelve apostles did. Perhaps oral communication was considered to be the best way of preaching the Gospel, followed by pastoral letters and then by written Gospels, Acts and finally Revelation. Therefore, strictly speaking the Bible is not (or at least was not) a mandatory attribute of Christianity but the books of the New Testament did appear at some point of the Church history when the need arose.

antiskeptic

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Your right you would not know but it would be nice to have been given the option to believe his words if he wrote them down or not.

If there is no effective difference in the options then there is no option. Only semantics.

You either believe it is his word (written by others or by him - it makes no difference) or you don't believe it is his word (written by others or by him - it makes no difference)

optogirl

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I didn't say it wasn't fair. I gave reasons why we have no such writings.

They are not reasons

CerebralCortex

I think a better question than the OP's would be; Why doesn't deity X just tell us right now what to do?

Festus

PDN wrote: »

This is really missing the point of Jesus.

He did not come to earth to give us a set of rules to live by, or even to leave us a 'message'. He came to atone for our sins through His sacrificial death, and to make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him.

Therefore He established relationships with others and they wrote down their experiences so we too can enter into such a relationship.

So, what then is John 13:34 ? Or John 14:15, or John 15:10

Or Mark 10:19

or Matthew 19:17, or 36:40

Slav

getz wrote: »

we do know jesus did write, but not what he wrote,john 8;6

I forgot where I read or heard of it, but it I found it rather interesting speculation on what Jesus might write in John 8. Indeed, why is it mentioned at all, and even twice, that Jesus was writing something on the ground with his finger? They suggested that he could write something like this:


Shimon has borne false witness against his brother Iehud
Iosef stole a sheep that belonged to his neighbour Shaul
Iohanan refused to give back 10 shekels to poor widow Hana which he owed to her deceased husband Nathan

...and so on.

Of course it's a pure speculation but in context it looks probable to me.

However it also has to be mentioned that the whole story of John 8:3-11 could be a later addition.

Festus

As He was a carpenter by trade I wonder if there are any items He made still knocking about somewhere?

Fanny Cradock

optogirl wrote: »

They are not reasons

Merely asserting that they aren't reasons doesn't make your non-existent case any stronger. I've been over this before with the OP. While it is a matter of opinion whether they are good reasons, please inform me why are they not to be considered reasons at all?

PDN

Festus wrote: »

So, what then is John 13:34 ? Or John 14:15, or John 15:10

Or Mark 10:19

or Matthew 19:17, or 36:40

They are examples of Jesus' teaching. My post stated that the purpose for Christ coming to earth was not primarily to be a Teacher or a Law Giver.

Jesus also worked as a carpenter - but it would be incorrect to say "He came to earth to make chairs".

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And why does reason 1 not make any sense? Saying as much is clearly a personal judgement for which you offer no evidence

Ultimately Jesus' ministry had one reason - through his death and resurrection he was to be the first fruits of new creation (read up on Christian eschatology if you want to know more about this). People either believed that the was the Son of Man foretold in the OT or he was a charlatan. Writing his thoughts down (to a what I gather would have been a semi or entirely illiterate audience) would not have changed this and would have served no purpose when actions speak louder than words. Whether Jesus wrote papyrus after papyrus of whether he wrote nothing doesn't change the claim of Christianity - the Bible (which reveals the person of Jesus) is sufficient for salvation. It was the followers of Christ who were told to be fishers of men.

But let's be honest here. At root you are deeply suspicious that we have no writings from Jesus and noting anyone can say will shift that suspicion.

Your interpretation of what was Jesus's primary reason for being here seems to differ from others. But lest be honest the gospels on some issues contradict each other ! Which is why being able to look at the first source is important. And the ' Bible' doesnt even include all the gospels ! So who is to say what is the authentic voice of Jesus ?

antiskeptic

anymore wrote: »

Your interpretation of what was Jesus's primary reason for being here seems to differ from others. But lest be honest the gospels on some issues contradict each other ! Which is why being able to look at the first source is important. And the ' Bible' doesnt even include all the gospels ! So who is to say what is the authentic voice of Jesus ?

What difference would the availability of the Gospel according to Jesus make for you? I mean, how would you authenticate it so as to place it above the other gospels?

anymore

PDN wrote: »

This is really missing the point of Jesus.

He did not come to earth to give us a set of rules to live by, or even to leave us a 'message'. He came to atone for our sins through His sacrificial death, and to make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him.

Therefore He established relationships with others and they wrote down their experiences so we too can enter into such a relationship.

Again the idea of establishing a relationship by not writing a first hand account of the message does not make sense. When was the first gospel written, how long after Jesus's death ? You dont establish a relationship, surely by using intermediaries long after ones death ?

anymore

antiskeptic wrote: »

What difference would the availability of the Gospel according to Jesus make for you? I mean, how would you authenticate it so as to place it above the other gospels?

Presumably it would be authenticated in the same fashion as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are authenticated, do you not agree ?

hinault

Slav wrote: »

It's also interesting that not only Jesus did not left any writings but it looks like very few of the twelve apostles did. Perhaps oral communication was considered to be the best way of preaching the Gospel, followed by pastoral letters and then by written Gospels, Acts and finally Revelation. Therefore, strictly speaking the Bible is not (or at least was not) a mandatory attribute of Christianity but the books of the New Testament did appear at some point of the Church history when the need arose.

I wonder are the original letters by the Disciples to various Christian communities
intact? (ie.letter from St Paul to the Romans etc).

antiskeptic

anymore wrote: »

Presumably it would be authenticated in the same fashion as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are authenticated, do you not agree ?

I would. But that authentication doesn't extend to you believing the words of Jesus as recorded are actually the words of Jesus. A problem that would apply presumably to any gospel of Jesus Christ too.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

Your interpretation of what was Jesus's primary reason for being here seems to differ from others.

I see a number of people on this page alone who agree with what I said. But why don't you read the NT for yourself and see what conclusions you reach.

anymore wrote: »

But lest be honest the gospels on some issues contradict each other ! Which is why being able to look at the first source is important. And the ' Bible' doesnt even include all the gospels ! So who is to say what is the authentic voice of Jesus ?

The first source is the Gospel accounts. They tell the story of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection from the witness point of view. They are, in other words, the story of Jesus through their eyes. In the case of the Gospel of John I would say that Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" makes an excellent case that it is a primary source, i.e. it was written by John the Apostle. He also makes a compelling case that the other Gospels are a direct result of oral history from the original apostles that was told in the small Christian community right up until their deaths.

Why this is not acceptable I don't understand. Presumably you would still be an atheist whether Jesus wrote 1000 books or none.

As for contradictions. One can say that they are insurmountable or one can look at attempts to reconcile them. Either way, I suggest that there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that contradict each other theologically. But we have had this discussion before on this forum. I suggest we start another thread before Pompey Magnus pops along.

I assume that when you are referring to "all the other gospels!" you mean the various Gnostic gospels. Have you read them? It might be an interesting exercise for you to compare the Jesus that appears in them with the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels.

anymore

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would. But that authentication doesn't extend to you believing the words of Jesus as recorded are actually the words of Jesus. A problem that would apply presumably to any gospel of Jesus Christ too.

Well, a gospel written by Jesus would at least have the advantage of being written in the language used by Jesus to address the people he was preaching to and less likely to misinterpretation. Was Aramaic or Greek the language of the first gospels and can even the decade in which the various gospels were written be known with any degree of certainty ?
I notice that there doesn't seem to be much interest in considering the first split in Christianity ?

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

.

.Why this is not acceptable I don't understand. Presumably you would still be an atheist whether Jesus wrote 1000 books or none.

.

Unbeleivable ! Asking a very pertinent question makes me an athetiest ?
Well arent I lucky I am not living in the middle ages ?

Irish Fire

anymore wrote: »

Unbeleivable ! Asking a very pertinent question makes me an athetiest ?
Well arent I lucky I am not living in the middle ages ?

Got a text from him last week he's laughing at this 21st of May crap.......

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see a number of people on this page alone who agree with what I said. But why don't you read the NT for yourself and see what conclusions you reach.



The first source is the Gospel accounts. They tell the story of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection from the witness point of view. They are, in other words, the story of Jesus through their eyes. In the case of the Gospel of John I would say that Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" makes an excellent case that it is a primary source, i.e. it was written by John the Apostle. He also makes a compelling case that the other Gospels are a direct result of oral history from the original apostles that was told in the small Christian community right up until their deaths.

Why this is not acceptable I don't understand. Presumably you would still be an atheist whether Jesus wrote 1000 books or none.

As for contradictions. One can say that they are insurmountable or one can look at attempts to reconcile them. Either way, I suggest that there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that contradict each other theologically. But we have had this discussion before on this forum. I suggest we start another thread before Pompey Magnus pops along.

I assume that when you are referring to "all the other gospels!" you mean the various Gnostic gospels. Have you read them? It might be an interesting exercise for you to compare the Jesus that appears in them with the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels.

Lets go to first principles, the first source for a message must be the source of the message.

anymore

Let me ask a question, if any of the posters here wanted to know what was in the Popes Lenten Pastoral, would they read the Pastoral itself ( or at least the english version of it ) or would they prefer to read a Cardinals version which he recounted from memory and committed to paper some time later ? Or even look at the slightly different versions of four Cardinals and then try to decide which was more authentic ?