verse of the day

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Why didn't Jesus write?

I was visiting a a blog today when I chose to fly over to another page. What I found there was interesting. You can read it here
. However if you are Christian you may want to hold off for about one hour before you comment. It is an open bash and one in which the very picture at the top of the blog made my blood pressure go up.
The post is call "Why didn't Jesus write?" and it deals with why Jesus didn't hand write anything in the Gospels. So lets go over a couple of reasons that he probably didn't write.
The first reason actually came from the blog's comment line.
1.“Jesus didn’t write anything because he knew people would worship his writings”
How true is this. If Jesus had written a sermon, letter, or just signed
something it would be like those small crosses people put in their
pockets. People would worship the writings and not the one who died for
them.It is not about the cross but the one who died for us on the cross.
If you have a cross in your pocket you need to ask why you have it.
Is a tool so you can remember the Lord is it becoming your god?
2. It would not be like God!
Through out the Bible you will find people who are of no authority used
by God like Paul, David, Gideon, Matthew, Mark , Luke, John, Esther, Ruth,
Moses, Joseph, Peter, Philemon, Titus,Daniel, and on and on.
Jesus wanted us to believe by faith. You don't think the Bible says that?
Once Thomas touched the Lord Jesus said "You believe because you have seen
me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me
."John 20:29
That means faith to me. Faith is the substance of things hoped for but
not seen? Back to the topic. If Jesus had just written it then people
would be like oh yeah well of course Jesus wrote a Bible. Once the
apostles wrote it through God's inspiration though people were
blown away. These guys are common folks! Not great teachers!
This must be God leading them. You see my point.
3. Why should He write?


John P said...

Hi BG.

I saw your link in my stats, and thought I'd check it out. It's always nice to get opposing viewpoints. Sometime preaching to the choir can be...unrewarding. Getting comments by the "opposition" helps me test my thinking, as the visit to my site may have tested yours.

I'm sorry the picture at the top of my blog may have offended you. It was not meant to offend. I don't apologize for putting it there, though. My personal thinking is that religion is ripe for criticism, whether it's offensive or not. I have no "hands off" policy for religious beliefs. They stand or fall on their own merit. That picture is just an artistic representation of the logical extension of what Jesus told his apostles to do at the last supper. Eat his flesh and drink his blood. Sure, it's graphic, but as an ex-Catholic, it never made much sense to me why he designed such a silly ritual. Catholics actually believe that, when they take communion, they are literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The priest who is performing the miracle of transubstantiation at every Mass actually believes it too. So there's a lot of merit in the criticism implied by the painting.

Now as for your post: Why didn't Jesus write? is more of a specific metaphor for the broader question, "Why didn't Jesus leave us better evidence" as I alluded to at the end of the post.

He could have, you know. You're guessing and rationalizing with your post, nothing more.

God is supposedly omniscient, i.e. he knows everything, including the future, and how his followers would act in the Church he founded. He had to know, for instance, that the Spanish Inquisition (blatant plug there) was going to happen. Did he approve? His silence implies he did. If he didn't, why not leave explicit evidence of his disapproval of the future, when he was here?

He had to know the Protestant Reformation was going to occur, primarily over disagreements with church teachings. Again, why not be clear? Why leave room for the ambiguity the protestant dissenters found? It would have been a simple matter to leave some clearly worded instructions. But he chose not to do so.

He knew people would worship his books? Come on, that's just silly. You're saying it's not a good thing to worship his writing, but it's OK to worship the Shroud of Turin, literally thousands of claimed relics of his "saints", even presumed pieces of the cross. It's OK to worship a mere representation of the object of his torture and death? But not a book written by him? The logic in that eludes me.

If he had written something, anything, the question of his existence would be moot, assuming it could be authenticated. As it stands, there is no independent corroborating evidence that he even lived and died. The Romans, meticulous record keepers, have no record of him. Neither do any historians of the time, save one mention from Josephus, and that reference is suspected as, and probably is, a later forgery. The Gospels are clearly written years after he allegedly died, and each succeeding Gospel written is built on the one written before.

You say that it would not be like God to write, that he wanted us to believe in him by faith. Since faith is claimed knowledge without the benefit of evidence, why would God want us to believe in him without any evidence? If he wanted us all to be like him, to worship him, eventually get to join him in heaven, why not present a little evidence? Just a smidgen? Why leave us to our devices to figure it out, and banish the ones who don't to somewhere other than heaven (I'm not sure whether you believe in a literal hell, lot's of Christians don't, so I won't go there)?

Would the world make a lot more sense if we could all believe because we knew, based on unequivocal evidence? Isn't knowledge better than belief? And why hold us accountable for not believing when he supposedly designed us with a mind that made all other decisions based on evidence, but then in this one regard, we are not allowed to have any, yet we must still make the right decision? Again, the logic eludes me.

Lastly you say he doesn't have to write, because he's God. Well, you've got me there. Unfortunately, you're going in a circle, because that was the point of my post. He's God. He can do anything. Why didn't he do that one simple thing - leave a writing as evidence?

If you are going to respond - you don't have to - please don't quote scripture to back up your argument. Scripture is meaningless unless you can first prove that God exists, otherwise you're using circular reasoning. Scripture has no authority unless you assume it is the word of God, and before you do that, you have to prove (to me) that God even exists. You can't prove god exists with his own words. If you could, I could say I'm god, and you'd have to accept it, because I wrote it.

So use logic and reason. Don't tell me Jesus doesn't write because a book says he shouldn't. I'm sure the irony of that wouldn't be lost on you.

Thanks for letting me respond.

Blog Guy said...

I don't think of myself as your "opposition".
Your picture is your choice. It is not to my likings but if it works for you. I am well aware of what the Catholic church teaches. I don't agree with all of it. I don't agree with all of any doctrine. I am a "member" of a Baptist church but openly state that I do not agree with all they teach. I would be a fool to completely take any ones theology and adopt it has my own just so I can say that I am a true Baptist.
Religion is ripe for all criticism.
I myself can not tolerate a religious person. I chose to let it be known that I have a relationship with Jesus. There is a difference.
I cannot convince you to believe in God any more than science can prove that He does not exist.
I at one time was an athiest. To much didn't add up. When I stopped hating Christians and became adapted to looking over the ways of most of them I found what I wanted.
Four theories on Christ. They deal with what ifs?....
1. I believe in Christ and I am wrong? I die and thats it.
2.I don't believe in Christ and I am wrong. I die forever. Same has the first.
3. I don't believe in Christ and I am right. I die forever. Same has the first two.
4. I believe and am right. I have a future of eternal happiness and love for ever.
To me this was an easy answer. Yeah I could have went to another "god" But the thought of worshiping a "god" who is dead makes no sense to me. I went with Jesus. Believe it or not I am happy this way. I have learned to be content.
I never said it was good to worship crosses. What I said was...
"1.“Jesus didn’t write anything because he knew people would worship his writings”
How true is this. If Jesus had written a sermon, letter, or just signed
something it would be like those small crosses people put in their
pockets. People would worship the writings and not the one who died for
them.It is not about the cross but the one who died for us on the cross.
If you have a cross in your pocket you need to ask why you have it.
Is a tool so you can remember the Lord is it becoming your god?"
People make these little trinkets
just as important has Jesus and it should not be that way. It is what it stands for not what it is. People have always done that. Cross, Christian bumper stickers, T-shirts, picture of the "blond hair, blue eyed Jesus"(which is wrong all in all) all have become gods to people. This should not be the case at all.
Why should Jesus have written a book to comfort us and direct us in what we should believe. People would just dismiss them as fake any way.
Once I stopped looking for ways to destroy God I started to realize how he works and I began to gain a love for Him. He works through people, places,things, and nature.
Everything leads up to Him and what He wants.
yet we rationalize that we cannot see Him so He is mad up. The odds of everything coming together to form life as we know it without divine intervention is to far fetched for me. I find it easier to believe in God and trust that I have a better future ahead of me.
Thanks for visiting my site John P and you are welcome here. I am not as educated as you(this I can tell from your writings) but I can understand what you are saying and can hold my own when it comes to my Faith. So fire away my friend.

John P said...

Naw. Not interested in firing away. I don't need to convince you of anything. I have no problem with your beliefs as long as YOU are happy with them, AND you don't try to impose them on me.

I write for me, and me alone.

One of the arguments in favor of religious beliefs is that they provide comfort to people, that they make people happy at times. Who could argue with that? It doesn't make them true but it does make them reassuring.

You chose door # 4 and got what you were looking for. Good for you.

I particularly find it admirable that people, such as you and I, are taking advantage of this wonderful Internet. Blogging is such a democratic tool for disseminating information. Anybody can do it. We're all the same here on the Net. We all have equal access. It also forces us to use something we've lost with telephones and television - the ability to communicate in writing. People at the turn of the last century use to write volumes and often in correspondence. The letter was actually a form of art. We don't do that anymore. We should write more, and not just text messages on cell phones.

I'll bet you'll notice a marked increase in your writing skills as time goes on. I have. Read my first couple of posts, then my last ones. I really think my writing, or at least my ability to turn my thoughts into word, has gotten better. Some might disagree, but as I said, I write for me. If anyone else finds it useful, that's a bonus.

Nice to meet you, BG

Blog Guy said...

Well obviously if you come to my blog you will notice that most of it is Christian based post. I will never attempt to cram the gospel down your throat or any one else's. You are (as I said) welcome here any time and I thank you for writing in a mature manner. Come back again soon