Did Jesus Write Anything Down Himself?

Because Christianity, when it comes down to it, is not about a series of propositions. It is about a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Therefore it makes sense for God to leave us the testimonies and records of those first followers who experienced that life changing relationship.

(The only writing the Bible mentions is Jesus writing in the sand in John Chapter 8, and most biblical scholars are agreed that was not part of the original biblical manuscripts but rather a later addition.)

Puck

One of the things I love about Jesus is that He didn't write a book of rules. If I was going to start up some kind of cult the first thing I would do is sit down and write my "big theory of everything" and all the rules this implies. Jesus went about the harder task of living with people, loving them and teaching them. Any ejit can write a book, it took someone who was who Jesus claimed to be to live the life that He did.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Therefore it makes sense for God to leave us the testimonies and records of those first followers who experienced that life changing relationship.

But nothing from the himself??

Put it this way, I'm sure from your personal experience that you met someone who didn't exactly conform to expectations given by the testimony of your fellow friends/relativites be it for better or worse. Surely such a personal relationship could so easily have been strengthened so much by some direct communication with the future followers?

Puck wrote: »

Any ejit can write a book, it took someone who was who Jesus claimed to be to live the life that He did.

Of course, that feat is truly admirable but I didn't say I expected a book just something...you some written acknowledgement or address to future disciples by himself.

postcynical

Malty_T wrote: »

So folks, did Jesus actually write down anything himself?
I'll always concede that the words may have been lost, but seriously, the most potentially important words of ALL Christianity, lost?
If it wasn't lost, why do you think he chose not to write?

Cryptic answer: He is the Word, made flesh.

Short answer: Indirectly Jesus, who is of one being with the Father, inspired the Bible.

Also, as Puck said, Christianity is to be lived, not just read. It's a serious error to treat Jesus as just a great human teacher, as CS Lewis argued quite forcefully. His teachings are good, but the focus of Christianity is on Jesus and the One who sent Him.

Splendour

Malty_T wrote: »

Hey Guys,

*A Warning First, this is written by an er.. agnostic atheist ignostic Non Christian person*

One of the things that I have always to struggled to grasp is why if Jesus is the son of God didn't he at least write something down? I mean, in a way, Christianity is relying on the testimony of a select few who claimed to be spreading the word of Jesus. In reality though, all one can ever do is take their word on faith and faith alone. It just doesn't make sense to me that if you're the son of the most powerful,loving and compassionate being in the universe would you trust someone else(who's obviously not perfect) to take down the most important lessons that you will pass down to all generations of your beloved children??You could reason that Jesus was compassionate, but surely as an all knowing being he'd know that by entrusting someone else with his teachings that it would lead to various rifts in his future followers? I get it, he needed witnesses but surely there was nothing to stop him writing a wee bit himself?

So folks, did Jesus actually write down anything himself?
I'll always concede that the words may have been lost, but seriously, the most potentially important words of ALL Christianity, lost?
If it wasn't lost, why do you think he chose not to write?

My initial response when I read this was 'what a great question' and then I thought 'what difference would it have made?' If Jesus had picked up pen (quill?!) and paper, do you think more people would believe?

Now, are ya ready for a mushy answer..?!

Thing is, he did write stuff down but not with pen and paper. He has written his word on the hearts of believers-with indelible ink. It is, as PDN has pointed out, all about relationship. There were and still are, many who believe yet have never seen the written word. It's about hearing (I mean really hearing),the word of God not reading it...

Turtwig

Splendour wrote: »

Now, are ya ready for a mushy answer..?!

Thing is, he did write stuff down but not with pen and paper. He has written his word on the hearts of believers-with indelible ink. It is, as PDN has pointed out, all about relationship. There were and still are, many who believe yet have never seen the written word. It's about hearing (I mean really hearing),the word of God not reading it...

If Jesus had picked up pen (quill?!) and paper, do you think more people would believe?

I don't actually think they would have, I just think it would have greater strengthened the personal bond of the relationship with his followers which is partly what Christianity is (at least what I thought it was).

Yeah, that's what I'm asking if he was the son of God then he had a reason, but what was it? A person could still hear his word from others, but why not say it himself directly even just a wee paragraph?

When, I was younger I thought it was part of the literal idea of words meaning nothing, actions meant everything therefore by performing his actions and leaving no words of his own we were left to judge him by what he did for us and we used those actions as a basis to better understand his mind...

He obviously chose to do it for a reason, and I'm sorry if this comes across as intrusive or soapboxing me still asking but it still bugs me to this day

I've wondered about this and all the answers above are correct. No need to write anything etc, Jesus was a man of the people, while writing and studying would have been the reserve of the wealthy, the Romans etc. Easier to mix with the fishermen and shepherds if you just go to them and talk man to man, rather than try to write parables in weighty tomes.

Another thing crossed my mind on this. It's possible this could have been deliberate on Jesus' part. I was thinking back to the trial and the evidence against Jesus. There was no concrete evidence only hearsay tbh and Jesus was also very clever to the point of being cryptic with his answers. Perhaps He didn't want any writings.

Splendour wrote: »

My initial response when I read this was 'what a great question' and then I thought 'what difference would it have made?' If Jesus had picked up pen (quill?!) and paper, do you think more people would believe?

I think a more interesting question is whether people would have believed the correct thing

The history of Christianity is littered with interpretation, doctrine and dogma that modern Christians feel go strongly against the teachings of Jesus.

They blame this on the corruption of Jesus' message, but you can't help feel that Jesus himself could have been clearer or more explicate. It is harder to corrupt a message the more explicate the message is. Almost from the get go Jesus' message was being interpreted and re-represented by flawed fallible humans. Anyone who spends 5 minutes playing Chinese whispers can see the issue with that.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think a more interesting question is whether people would have believed the correct thing

The history of Christianity is littered with interpretation, doctrine and dogma that modern Christians feel go strongly against the teachings of Jesus.

They blame this on the corruption of Jesus' message, but you can't help feel that Jesus himself could have been clearer or more explicate. It is harder to corrupt a message the more explicate the message is. Almost from the get go Jesus' message was being interpreted and re-represented by flawed fallible humans. Anyone who spends 5 minutes playing Chinese whispers can see the issue with that.

Of course the answer to that lies in the discipline of exegesis, which is determining by scholarly means the precise meaning of a text, and how the original authors intended it to be understood.

As this is my own particular field of study I am happy to discuss exegetical issues with most posters - but not with you or robindch. This is because, in a previous debate, you both argued vehemently that exegesis is rubbish and impossible, and that interpretation of texts cannot be objective. I determined at that point that I would not assist you to commit hypocrisy by discussing any exegetical issues with you.

So, providing you have some consistency in your views and are not simply a hypocritical troll who argues whatever he thinks will discredit Christianity whether he believes the argument it or not, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you whether Jesus wrote his message or how clearly he stated it. Any attempt to understand it would still be exegesis and, according to you, rubbish.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

PDN wrote: »

Of course the answer to that lies in the discipline of exegesis, which is determining by scholarly means the precise meaning of a text, and how the original authors intended it to be understood.

That is some what irrelevant to my point though. Determining by "scholarly means" what the authors of the gospels meant still allows for corruption or misinterpretation of what Jesus meant by the people writing the gospels.

If Jesus had written his message down himself you remove a level of possible misinterpretation or error.

The idea that Jesus would spread his message verbally fits in with the idea that early Christians believed the end times where near, and as such recording the message for history was some what unnecessary. It makes much less sense when you imagine that the people Jesus would be talking to would represent a tiny fraction of the over all amount of people that were meant to be exposed to his message over time. Relying on second and third party accounts of his message seems bizarre given how error prone it is.

If I need to find out what a colleague of mine is working on in order to get my software module to sink up with his I can just ask him. While it is very important that I get the information correct the information is expect to only revolve around us and be valid for a brief period of time. Verbal communication is quick and well sorted for this task.

If on the other hand I'm detailing the way my software module is supposed to work for the rest of the company, and potentially for people who don't even work at the company yet but at some time in the future may have to work with my software module, I write it down.

I could simply tell everyone in the company "My module does this", and then expect them to tell anyone else that joins later on that my module does this. But that way is so prone to error and mistake that no company would do that. If the future programmer runs into a issue between what his is being told about my module and the module itself is has no way of determining if the issue is with the module or is the information passed on to him has simply been misunderstood by my colleagues.

As I mention below language is ultimately the communication of abstract ideas, and the more translations the representation of these ideas (the words and sentences) take before they are recorded (written) the more chance that the abstract idea you started with is not the one you end up with.

There is a translation process that takes place every time someone interprets a piece of text or speech. The idea starts off in the head of the author, is translated to text by the author (this in itself can produce mistakes between idea and representation, communication of ideas is a skill in of itself), read by someone else and translated back to an abstract idea. If there is any misinterpretation of the text or speech then the idea you end up with will not match the original idea.

If this second person then records the idea in their head to text they will represent as best they can this new idea, not the old idea. Even if you are able to determine the exact idea they had in their head from what they wrote down that doesn't mean that idea is the same idea the original person had in their head.

To see that idea you must go back to the original representation of what that idea. That is as close as you can get to the original idea, it is the interpretation of that idea by the person who holds it in their head.

PDN wrote: »

As this is my own particular field of study I am happy to discuss exegetical issues with most posters - but not with you or robindch. This is because, in a previous debate, you both argued vehemently that exegesis is rubbish and impossible, and that interpretation of texts cannot be objective. I determined at that point that I would not assist you to commit hypocrisy by discussing any exegetical issues with you.

So, providing you have some consistency in your views and are not simply a hypocritical troll who argues whatever he thinks will discredit Christianity whether he believes the argument it or not, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you whether Jesus wrote his message or how clearly he stated it. Any attempt to understand it would still be exegesis and, according to you, rubbish.

Some what off topic, but no, that is a total straw man representation of mine and Robin's position as I imagine you know. :rolleyes:

I have no issue with the idea that people have to interpret text, including the Bible. In fact all language relies on interpretation. There is a limit to the exact meaning a person can communicate through human language as ultimately all words relate to abstract concepts and it is impossible to determine that the concept the person was meaning to relay in the text is the concept that will be triggered when another person reads it and vice versa.

All language must be interpreted, even the simplest phrase or sentence must be interpreted by another human in order to understand it. The idea that I was saying that all interpretation is rubbish is frankly laughable PDN, and you should really know better.

What myself and Robin (I assume if I have understood him correct) both objected to was your use of exegesis as some form of justification that your interpretation was objective and true and everyone else's were wrong, which you have a disturbing habit of doing.

You can certainly try and build up a case for your interpretation being true, and try and explain why, but you hide behind exegesis as a process as if it some how proves that it is.

Interpretation is always subjective. It is the idea that through exegesis you can find an objective interpretation of a passage, ie the "correct" interpretation is what I consider rubbish.

Exegesis itself is a completely subjective field, demonstrated quite clearly by people doing exegesis based on certain axioms, such as the infallibility of the Bible. There is little point in pretending you are being objective when subjectively determine what is or isn't valid interpretation.

It is the use of exegesis as some kind of serious science I find highly laughable, and the false faith that some, including yourself put, in it for providing true correct interpretations.

How you got from that to trying to interpret text is rubbish, well I've no idea, but it is possibly down to again how much faith you put in the objectivity of exegesis.

Wicknight wrote: »

How you got from that to trying to interpret text is rubbish, well I've no idea, but it is possibly down to again how much faith you put in the objectivity of exegesis.

Wicknight wrote:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58621703&highlight=exegesis#post58621703 Again you are missing the point. No one can be trusted to do exegesis in any meaningful way because exegesis is nonsense.

Yeah, right.

PDN wrote: »

Yeah, right.

Yeah right what

Fattes

He wrote "Romanes eunt domus" on a wall once but then a helpfull centurian corrected his grammer and he wrote "Romani eunt Domum" 100 times

spurious

I would be very surprised if Jesus could write.
A 1st century carpenter? What need would he have of writing?

spurious wrote: »

I would be very surprised if Jesus could write.
A 1st century carpenter? What need would he have of writing?

I think the Bible describes him as studying with Rabbis, which would probably require him to be literate

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Hey Guys,

*A Warning First, this is written by an er.. agnostic atheist ignostic Non Christian person*

One of the things that I have always to struggled to grasp is why if Jesus is the son of God didn't he at least write something down? I mean, in a way, Christianity is relying on the testimony of a select few who claimed to be spreading the word of Jesus. In reality though, all one can ever do is take their word on faith and faith alone. It just doesn't make sense to me that if you're the son of the most powerful,loving and compassionate being in the universe would you trust someone else(who's obviously not perfect) to take down the most important lessons that you will pass down to all generations of your beloved children??You could reason that Jesus was compassionate, but surely as an all knowing being he'd know that by entrusting someone else with his teachings that it would lead to various rifts in his future followers? I get it, he needed witnesses but surely there was nothing to stop him writing a wee bit himself?

So folks, did Jesus actually write down anything himself?
I'll always concede that the words may have been lost, but seriously, the most potentially important words of ALL Christianity, lost?
If it wasn't lost, why do you think he chose not to write?

Short answer:

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." John 5:31

Long answer:

What if a book - which was supposedly written by Jesus - was found tomorrow, what would you expect to find written in it by Him? Would you expect some sort of personal diary or something?

Dear diary it is now year 30 and I've just finished turning some water into wine to keep a wedding party going, yes it was real wine with real alcohol. Tomorrow I'm off to get baptized in the Jordan which sounds like its going to be great fun, then its to the wilderness with me for a 40 day and night fast and a chat with Satan, oh goodie can't wait!!! The book of Jesus chapter 30 verse 1-3

I bet if such a book was found it would either say the same things that the gospels say about Jesus and as such be rejected by the world for the most part or it would contradict the gospel records and create a bandwagon that all the anitchrsitians will jump on and use to attack Christianity. Sure even if one where found and it did agree with the Gospel accounts, how does one prove it was written by Jesus anyway?

And as we are on the subject, doesn't the fact that there is no such writings of Jesus extant - which could have been forged - give the Church a little credit in a sense? All they would have had to do was to forge one and have it say whatever they wanted it to say and used it as their primary authority instead of given credit to minor characters in the narative like Luke and Mark. This gives credibility to the authenticity of what are and have been accepted as divinely inspired writings throughout the centuries.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As this is my own particular field of study I am happy to discuss exegetical issues with most posters - but not with you or robindch. This is because, in a previous debate, you both argued vehemently that exegesis is rubbish and impossible, and that interpretation of texts cannot be objective.

I've said it before a few times and obviously I'll have to say it again here:

I have not said that exegesis is always rubbish, I have said that exegesis as it is usually carried out by people who have a strong vested interest in supporting one interpretation or another, is useless.

I have highlighted in red the bit that you appear to have some trouble remembering.

jaffa20

robindch wrote: »

I've said it before a few times and obviously I'll have to say it again here:

I have not said that exegesis is always rubbish, I have said that exegesis as it is usually carried out by people who have a strong vested interest in supporting one interpretation or another, is useless.

I have highlighted in red the bit that you appear to have some trouble remembering.

Of course! Especially when the bible has been translated mistranslated many times.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Of course! Especially when the bible has been translated mistranslated many times.

So you think our knowledge of Hebrew and Greek today is so defective that we are incapable of translating them into English?

robindch wrote: »

I've said it before a few times and obviously I'll have to say it again here:

I have not said that exegesis is always rubbish, I have said that exegesis as it is usually carried out by people who have a strong vested interest in supporting one interpretation or another, is useless.

I have highlighted in red the bit that you appear to have some trouble remembering.

So, let's see, who has the most vested interest in interpreting the Bible to suit themselves:

a) A Christian who believes the Bible to be an objective message from God, thereby requiring it to be understood as accurately as possible in order to live their life the way God would have him live it?

Or,

b) An atheist who is so keen to argue against Christianity that he routinely posts on every a wide variety of threads on the Christianity board and, amazingly, always manages to come up with the interpretation that he feels is the most damaging to Christianity?

I think it clear that the second person is the one who has the much greater capacity for self-delusion. The first at least has the desire to engage in exegesis of the text. It makes sense for him to study ancient Near Eastern cultures and context, to learn Hebrew and Greek, and to make an honest attempt to come to a right interpretation.

The second person needs no other skill than a knack for recognising the most damaging interpretation and a few superficial debating techniques.

PDN wrote: »

a) A Christian who believes the Bible to be an objective message from God, thereby requiring it to be understood as accurately as possible in order to live their life the way God would have him live it?

Thank you for highlighting the issue with the type of Biblical exegesis you put so much faith in to derive the objective, true, interpretation of the Bible.

Now, can we get back to the issue at hand. You skirted over the points I made about the problems between viewing what Jesus said and what people think Jesus said, and how Jesus writing down his ideas and messages could have over come these problems.

jaffa20

PDN wrote: »

So you think our knowledge of Hebrew and Greek today is so defective that we are incapable of translating them into English?

Maybe not but you have to understand that you are not only translating a language but a culture, a different set of ideas with a different time period. It is very difficult to translate that without being subjective. You translate in a way that that can only be interpretated by us in the present and thus, the meaning and object of the original text is lost. This relates to a text of any period.

Soul Winner

jaffa20 wrote: »

Maybe not but you have to understand that you are not only translating a language but a culture, a different set of ideas with a different time period. It is very difficult to translate that without being subjective. You translate in a way that that can only be interpretated by us in the present and thus, the meaning and object of the original text is lost. This relates to a text of any period.

How do you know the that the meaning and the object of the orignial text was lost? You must know what is is if you know it was lost right? So what was the meaning and object of the original text? I can't wait to find out.

jaffa20

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you know the that the meaning and the object of the orignial text was lost? You must know what is is if you know it was lost right? So what was the meaning and object of the original text? I can't wait to find out.

We'll never know. Unless you have a time machine.

I'm talking about translation in general here. I wrote my thesis on translation and have studied the problems of translating culture. My point is that translation, and understanding of a text in turn is subjective and cannot be understood in the present because someone has a different set of thoughts and ideas than the creator of the original.

jaffa20 wrote: »

We'll never know. Unless you have a time machine.
I'm talking about translation in general here. I wrote my thesis on translation and have studied the problems of translating culture. My point is that translation, and understanding of a text in turn is subjective and cannot be understood in the present because someone has a different set of thoughts and ideas than the creator of the original.

The same could be said regardless of whether or not a text was translated, i.e. is our understanding of Shakespeare is subjective? Does it have a material effect of what we are being told?

postcynical

jaffa20 wrote: »

My point is that translation, and understanding of a text in turn is subjective and cannot be understood in the present because someone has a different set of thoughts and ideas than the creator of the original.

Your point applies to contemporary people who speak different languages.
It could even be adapted to people who speak variations of the same language.

It could even be slightly tweaked to imply that you won't understand my post, because what I conceive and what you infer are disconnected events.

I don't agree with this, based on my own readings and travelling. However, in the case to hand, God sent His Spirit to guide us in understanding His word and His universe. Furthermore, your point might also explain why Jesus chose to live His message rather than write it.

prinz wrote: »

The same could be said regardless of whether or not a text was translated, i.e. is our understanding of Shakespeare is subjective? Does it have a material effect of what we are being told?

I think that is the point

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that is the point

I don't accept the point. I don't think our reading and understanding now of Shakespeare is materially different from how he meant it, and how it was understood by his contemporaries tbh.

prinz wrote: »

I don't accept the point. I don't think our reading and understanding now of Shakespeare is materially different from how he meant it, and how it was understood by his contemporaries tbh.

Really? You didn't read Romeo and Juliet and think it was a bit odd that Juliet is 13 years old?

Most people who read a text from an earlier period will attempt to contextualise the text with their own time period. Which is a natural response, it is all we know, most people weren't alive in 16th century England.