Did Jesus leave any message in writing ?

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 ?

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

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.

But it wouldn't make you believe, and it wouldn't make me a better Christian.

anymore wrote: »

Was Aramaic or Greek the language of the first gospels

We have Greek manuscripts.

anymore wrote: »

and can even the decade in which the various gospels were written be known with any degree of certainty ?

Not with absolute certainty. But then again we are talking about history here. There is a date range that most scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) agree upon. For example, it is agreed that the earliest written accounts of Jesus found within the Bible are from Paul. The general consensus is that they were written sometime in the early 50's. Some people put these accounts earlier, some later. But then again we are talking a very small community that didn't enjoy favour amongst the ruling authorities. So it is hardly surprising that we can't say with any more precision.

anymore wrote: »

I notice that there doesn't seem to be much interest in considering the first split in Christianity ?

That's probably because it isn't seen of importance in the context of this discussion.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it wouldn't make you believe, and it wouldn't make me a better Christian.



We have Greek manuscripts.



Not with absolute certainty. But then again we are talking about history here. There is a date range that most scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) agree upon. For example, it is agreed that the earliest written accounts of Jesus found within the Bible are from Paul. The general consensus is that they were written sometime in the early 50's. Some people put these accounts earlier, some later. But then again we are talking a very small community that didn't enjoy favour amongst the ruling authorities. So it is hardly surprising that we can't say with any more precision.



That's probably because it isn't seen of importance in the context of this discussion.

Please dont make presumptions about I do or dont believe - it isnt very christian of you.
The fact that we dont have gospels written in the language of Jesus and the first and most disastrous split in christianity are of course linked. The split came about as a result of differences of interpretation. And how could it be otherwise when the Gospels are not actually written in the language of Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

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

You are correct to put those confused smilies because that is not what I said.

Let's look at the responses in this thread.

Firstly, it seems that most of the Christian responders aren't bothered by the lack of text attributed to the hand of Jesus.

Secondly, you are an atheist presumably because you simply don't believe that anything exists beyond the material universe. So, again, it doesn't matter to your faith (or lack of) what books Christianity has. Whether Jesus said "I rose from the dead" or John said "he rose from the dead" amounts to the same thing because you reasonably presuppose that dead people don't rise.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

Please dont make presumptions about I do or dont believe - it isnt very christian of you.

What? It is unChristian of me to make presumptions? I presume that you wouldn't be moved to belief in Jesus by the unearthing of a Gospel of Jesus just like I'm not moved to believe in the zodiac every time a new star sign is discovered.

You seem to think that my words were intended as a slight. They really weren't.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are correct to put those confused smilies because that is not what I said.

Let's look at the responses in this thread.

Firstly, it seems that most of the Christian responders aren't bothered by the lack of text attributed to the hand of Jesus.

Secondly, you are an atheist presumably because you simply don't believe that anything exists beyond the material universe. So, again, it doesn't matter to your faith (or lack of) what books Christianity has. Whether Jesus said "I rose from the dead" or John said "he rose from the dead" amounts to the same thing because you reasonably presuppose that dead people don't rise.

" And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy "
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

"presume nothing"
— Arthur Conan Doyle (The Hound of the Baskervilles)

biscuiteater

i'd say myself the bible written after he died is by a bunch of gossips, and we know how accurate they are if you live in a small town

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

" And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy "
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

"presume nothing"
— Arthur Conan Doyle (The Hound of the Baskervilles)

OK, well if that is a round about way of saying "I presume a Gospel written by Jesus would make me reconsider my atheism" then I apologise for presuming otherwise.

anymore

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, well if that is a round about way of saying "I presume a Gospel written by Jesus would make me reconsider my atheism" then I apologise for presuming otherwise.

Again, sadly, you are wrong. Those quotes were a reflection on you, not me.

anymore

Cayetano Ripoll (allegedly from Solsona 1778 - Valencia 1826), was a schoolmaster in Valencia, Spain, who was hanged to death on 26 July 1826 for allegedly teaching Deist principles.[1] [2] Ripoll has the dubious honor of being the last of the many people known to have been executed for having committed the illegal act of heresy, under sentence from a 'Church authority,' specifically the Spanish Inquisition. His last words were, "I die reconciled to God and to man." [3]
So without even having the benefit of being able to refer to Jesus's own words, an innocent man was murdered in Jesus's name ! And how often down through the centuries were innocents murdered for heresy and all without being able to refer to Jesus's words in their defence but being codemned because of somebody's interpreation of some translation of alleged words written long after the alleged words were spoken. I give this example above just to suggest that sometimes we do have to ask questions.

Fanny Cradock

anymore wrote: »

Those quotes were a reflection on you, not me.

Yes, I understand that. I am actually trying to apologise.

If you think a "Jesus Gospel" would actually make a difference to you then I have already offered my apologies for presuming otherwise. Is this the case?