Why didn't Jesus write a Gospel?

[Desert Snake]

its not a matter of faith, as much as using it as intended.

For the lessons and morals and the teachings are what is important, not in belief of the supernatural.

Just because man wrote it for men, does not discount it one bit.

You're not an authority on that.

 

[ruffen]

Followers of Jesus should follow Jesus and his teachings. Present Christianity highlights the creeds which are invented by Paul and the Church and Jesus' teachings have been pressed in the background.

In this sense NT Bible is an unauthorized book.

There is no legitimate foundation of the modern Christianity.

Regards

Exactly. It must be difficult to follow Jesus and his teachings when there are no authorized/confirmed/well-established works to let people know exactly what his teachings were.

We know only what people tell us his teachings were, people who are not Jesus, people who might have had their own agendas for what they wrote. For example if someone was a bit of a homophobe, he made sure to get that part into his writings.

If Jesus had written a Gospel of his own, one might doubt its authenticity of course (unless some kind of "magic" made everyone sure it was legit - shouldn't be too hard for the guy who walked on water and fed thousands with a little fish and bread), but that would be confirmed as the words of Jesus himself.

Now all the Christian world is left with is other people's impressions of who Jesus were or who they thought he should be. Every singe claim of the powers of Jesus, the miracles he performed, the rising-from-the-dead-business, and even his entire existence as a historic person, is dubious and of questionable credibility.

 

[fantome profane]

One can then wonder why God sent only one son, at only one part of the world at a specific time and place where people were illiterate extremely ignorant about the world around them

"If you'd come today, you would have reached the whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication." - J.C Superstar

 

[Desert Snake]

Exactly. It must be difficult to follow Jesus and his teachings when there are no authorized/confirmed/well-established works to let people know exactly what his teachings were.

We know only what people tell us his teachings were, people who are not Jesus, people who might have had their own agendas for what they wrote. For example if someone was a bit of a homophobe, he made sure to get that part into his writings.

If Jesus had written a Gospel of his own, one might doubt its authenticity of course (unless some kind of "magic" made everyone sure it was legit - shouldn't be too hard for the guy who walked on water and fed thousands with a little fish and bread), but that would be confirmed as the words of Jesus himself.

Now all the Christian world is left with is other people's impressions of who Jesus were or who they thought he should be. Every singe claim of the powers of Jesus, the miracles he performed, the rising-from-the-dead-business, and even his entire existence as a historic person, is dubious and of questionable credibility.

Gospels==witness accounts.

 

[ruffen]

Gospels==witness accounts.

Okay, gospel is the wrong word to use.

The thread should probably be called "why didn't Jesus write a book of his own instead of relying on witnesses to get his message out".

 

[Windwalker]

One can then wonder why God sent only one son, at only one part of the world at a specific time and place where people were illiterate extremely ignorant about the world around them. Again, one should expect the timeless message and messenger of the creator of the Universe to all humanity for all time, to be a little bit less... local.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Ro. 8:14 That sounds to me a global affair. Doesn't it to you?

It is so localized in time, place and culture that everything Jesus is claimed to have said, must be viewed in light of the culture and laws that were around back then. That doesn't seem like a plausible message from God to all of humanity.

Timeless truths resonate throughout all cultures. It's only someone who is unable to discern what those are, who try to find truth in some externalized form, do what fundamentalists do and try to turn back the hands of time's advance to a "simpler" or "purer" time and do what the early "believers" did, since they "had it" in their eyes. The only advantage to understanding the cultural backdrop is to provide a context to understand with the mind the sorts of impact or penetration those truths must have had to give a hint to what that applied truth might have in today's contexts. It provides a hint, not a realization.

Especially for the poor millions or billons who lived their lives before year 0.

The message of God, this timeless Truth lives in all creation, is seen and known in all creation, and is understood in creation, today and before the year zero. But to be clear, we are not talking relative cultural truths, but timeless eternal Truth. It is through knowing that we are able to apply it in relative terms to the culture we are in. Never, are those dogmatic and inflexible or absolutist.

 

[fantome profane]

Gospels==witness accounts.

What?

 

[ruffen]

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Ro. 8:14 That sounds to me a global affair. Doesn't it to you?


Timeless truths resonate throughout all cultures. It's only someone who is unable to discern what those are, who try to find truth in some externalized form, do what fundamentalists do and try to turn back the hands of time's advance to a "simpler" or "purer" time and do what the early "believers" did, since they "had it" in their eyes. The only advantage to understanding the cultural backdrop is to provide a context to understand with the mind the sorts of impact or penetration those truths must have had to give a hint to what that applied truth might have in today's contexts. It provides a hint, not a realization.


The message of God, this timeless Truth lives in all creation, is seen and known in all creation, and is understood in creation, today and before the year zero. But to be clear, we are not talking relative cultural truths, but timeless eternal Truth. It is through knowing that we are able to apply it in relative terms to the culture we are in. Never, are those dogmatic and inflexible or absolutist.

Then what was the purpose of Jesus?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay, gospel is the wrong word to use.

The thread should probably be called "why didn't Jesus write a book of his own instead of relying on witnesses to get his message out".

Even when the witnesses were fast asleep.

 

[outhouse]

The thread should probably be called "why didn't Jesus write a book of his own instead of relying on witnesses to get his message out".

He did not rely on a single witness. Two mistakes your making.

He never intended to rely on anyone

There were no witnesses.

 

[Windwalker]

Then what was the purpose of Jesus?

What is the purpose, or function, of any enlightened soul? To teach, to lead, to open the way for those who wish to rise above suffering. And the goal would be that all can become this themselves, at which point it is as that scripture says, "as many as are lead by the Spirit of God are the sons of God". I do not believe any teacher like this would wish you to remain dependent upon them, but to become them in yourself, to then become that to others.

 

[outhouse]

What is the purpose, or function, of any enlightened soul?

Define enlightened

Define soul


Because to date, a soul does not exist scientifically and was created out of ancient men's mythology.

"as many as are lead by the Spirit of God are the sons of God".

The same can be said about someone called the son of god before jesus was even born, the Emperor.

So all that factually applies to a corrupt primitive politician.

Maybe you would like to rephrase that, or step out of a historical debate when you only have apologetics top run with?

 

[ruffen]

What is the purpose, or function, of any enlightened soul? To teach, to lead, to open the way for those who wish to rise above suffering. And the goal would be that all can become this themselves, at which point it is as that scripture says, "as many as are lead by the Spirit of God are the sons of God". I do not believe any teacher like this would wish you to remain dependent upon them, but to become them in yourself, to then become that to others.

Okay, but what about those living before year 0?

 

[Windwalker]

Okay, but what about those living before year 0?

There have always been those throughout the ages who touch that Truth. And each try to share that knowledge with those of their day, in way they can at their best relate. It is a terrible error to think truth is a static thing that has a single understanding. Rather it is known in relative terms, evolving terms. My point was that Truth is, and always has been, fully accessible to anyone, at any time in history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One can then wonder why God sent only one son, at only one part of the world at a specific time and place where people were illiterate extremely ignorant about the world around them.

Again, one should expect the timeless message and messenger of the creator of the Universe to all humanity for all time, to be a little bit less... local. It is so localized in time, place and culture that everything Jesus is claimed to have said, must be viewed in light of the culture and laws that were around back then. That doesn't seem like a plausible message from God to all of humanity.

Especially for the poor millions or billons who lived their lives before year 0.

Since the beginning of Christianity, interpreters of the Bible have recognized that it's the product of "localized" contexts. So, using your terms, Christians have recognized that some parts of the Bible are strictly local and some parts are timeless.

If the Bible did not have a genuine setting in the multi-layered context in which it originated, it would have been meaningless and not preserved by the people who received it. Christians have recognized that the message of the Bible transcends its contexts, and God's word shines through it and speaks to us.

Now whether or not that message is reasonable is another question entirely. For one thing, illiteracy and ignorance is completely irrelevant because it's relative to context, but the Bible itself remains the same. Future generations may think that we're ignorant, therefore whatever we say is worthless to them. They may look back at all our accomplishments and see that we can produce nothing of value because we're too stupid to know what they know. They can disregard our public education, literacy rates, art and culture, medicine, engineering, and so on, just as you're dismissing the relative advanced society of the Roman Empire.

In any case, judging the ancients and their products by your values - at least in the way that you're doing it - is sophomoric and shallow. You're not going to get reliable results from that line of inquiry.

 

[ruffen]

There have always been those throughout the ages who touch that Truth. And each try to share that knowledge with those of their day, in way they can at their best relate. It is a terrible error to think truth is a static thing that has a single understanding. Rather it is known in relative terms, evolving terms. My point was that Truth is, and always has been, fully accessible to anyone, at any time in history.

So, then, what was the point of Jesus, if anyone can do what he did?

 

[Windwalker]

So, then, what was the point of Jesus, if anyone can do what he did?

To show others how.

 

[ruffen]

Or was the point of Jesus not to spread wisdom and the word and knowledge of God and be a prophet, but simply be someone to sacrifice so that the iron age blood price would be paid so that God could forgive humanity for the weaknesses he created us with, and being unable to forgive unconditionally, he had to have someone murdered?

 

[ruffen]

To show others how.

Why, if people before year 0 already knew?

 

[Windwalker]

Or was the point of Jesus not to spread wisdom and the word and knowledge of God and be a prophet, but simply be someone to sacrifice so that the iron age blood price would be paid so that God could forgive humanity for the weaknesses he created us with, and being unable to forgive unconditionally, he had to have someone murdered?

I don't believe that way myself. Jesus was a teacher of Wisdom. If all Jesus was was a human sacrifice to appease a deity that demanded blood, then why not cut to the chase and kill him as an infant?