Why Is There No Book of Jesus?

[kejos]

Hi all,
I'm posting this in the general Abrahamic DIR cause I'd like opinions from all sorts who believe that Jesus was really EITHER the son of G-d or one of his prophets.

Why didn't Jesus write his own book? The Bible is full of prophets writing down the things G-d gave them! Moses wrote FIVE! So why didn't Jesus write ANY? Wouldn't it have been nice to have his word straight from him?
(Alternatively, if you think Jesus did write his own book, why isn't it in the Bible?

The Bible is Jesus' book, if its content is true! Imagine that Jesus really was God's manifestation, then read the Old Testament as his own words. Never mind that Moses, Isaiah and the rest did the actual penning; think of their words as those of Jesus when they report the divine will. It may well change the way you think about the Bible.

Now the New Testament does not say anything much that is not already at least latent in the Old. As he frequently reminded Pharisees and Sadduccees, Jesus had said it all before he came, to those who had eyes to see. The Sanhedrin of Jewish leaders almost certainly realised this, steeped as they were in those Scriptures, but they mostly hated Jesus and would not admit it. But most of us simply have no real clue how much was already revealed when Jesus came- but most in rich countries are like the Sanhedrin, and don't want to know.

However, Jesus did indeed in a way write his own book, because all of his reported statements in the gospels (and one or two in Paul's letters) could be said to make a book. The reason that he evidently did no actual writing is because he quite obviously did not need to do so! But there is an old saying, "Self-praise is no recommendation," and the very fact that Jesus, an ordinary man by most measures, got so many other people to voluntarily write on his behalf is powerful testimony, and very significant, in itself.

 

[fallingblood]

The Bible is Jesus' book, if its content is true! Imagine that Jesus really was God's manifestation, then read the Old Testament as his own words. Never mind that Moses, Isaiah and the rest did the actual penning; think of their words as those of Jesus when they report the divine will. It may well change the way you think about the Bible.

First, Moses, Isaiah, and the rest who are accredited with the writing probably didn't actually write them. We know for sure Moses did not do so, as he records his own death, as well as events that supposedly happened afterwards. So that rules him out.

As for the Old Testament, no, it has nothing to do with Jesus. There is no suggestion or evidence that the Old Testament has anything to do with Jesus. So it would be senseless to do what you are suggesting we do.

Now the New Testament does not say anything much that is not already at least latent in the Old. As he frequently reminded Pharisees and Sadduccees, Jesus had said it all before he came, to those who had eyes to see. The Sanhedrin of Jewish leaders almost certainly realised this, steeped as they were in those Scriptures, but they mostly hated Jesus and would not admit it. But most of us simply have no real clue how much was already revealed when Jesus came- but most in rich countries are like the Sanhedrin, and don't want to know.

Writing about events that already happened does not make qualify of being prophecies. That is what is done with Jesus. The writers of the Gospels searched through the scriptures and falsely attributed things to Jesus. If you read the Gospels with an understanding of Jewish scripture, you will quickly see this. The fact is, Jesus does not fulfill the so called prophecies accredited to him. In fact, they have nothing to do with Jesus. They were already fulfilled before hand.

The Jewish leader, and anyone who understands Jewish scripture would know this. So the point you're making is failing in one very important instance. That instance is that you do not understand the meaning of Jewish scripture.

However, Jesus did indeed in a way write his own book, because all of his reported statements in the gospels (and one or two in Paul's letters) could be said to make a book. The reason that he evidently did no actual writing is because he quite obviously did not need to do so! But there is an old saying, "Self-praise is no recommendation," and the very fact that Jesus, an ordinary man by most measures, got so many other people to voluntarily write on his behalf is powerful testimony, and very significant, in itself.

No they couldn't. The reason being is that we know that a majority of what is accredited to Jesus was never uttered by Jesus. And even with what we know Jesus most likely did say, we could still not say he wrote a book. He had no intention of it. The only reason that we know anything about him is because some people saw him as a messiah type figure and it caught hold. In his time, he really was not very significant at all. He was just one more failed Messiah. The fact that people wrote about him in no way states that he was significant. Many people have been written about who have very little to offer the world.

 

[muzu]

Jesus died at a pretty early age, so....

If we say God is immortal, then how can he die?

 

[fallingblood]

If we say God is immortal, then how can he die?

Jesus isn't God. That would be the first explanation. The second is that he was God incarnate, meaning in human flesh. Which would explain why he could die.

 

[sojourner]

Hi all,
I'm posting this in the general Abrahamic DIR cause I'd like opinions from all sorts who believe that Jesus was really EITHER the son of G-d or one of his prophets.

Why didn't Jesus write his own book? The Bible is full of prophets writing down the things G-d gave them! Moses wrote FIVE! So why didn't Jesus write ANY? Wouldn't it have been nice to have his word straight from him?
(Alternatively, if you think Jesus did write his own book, why isn't it in the Bible?)

Peace!
EV

The prophets weren't written down until hundreds of years after they were dead. The belief that Moses wrote 5 books is also false. Moses didn't write them. Jesus didn't write because people generally didn't write in those days. Communication was oral.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If Jesus was illiterate, why did he write in the dust? (At least according to the writer of John)

8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin" [John 8:1-11 NIV].

Hebrew tradition and teaching were mostly oral at that time (as Sojourner pointed out). The later writers of his life were influenced by the Greek tradition of writing everything down.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

To me Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so the math is simple...

Maths are simple, but this one is hard;

(Jesus= god) and ( Jesus <> God )

==>

(Book of Jesus = Book of god) and (Book of jesus <> Book of god)

( Btw, the <> is a sign used in computer programmation for different from )

 

[Twig pentagram]

Hi all,
I'm posting this in the general Abrahamic DIR cause I'd like opinions from all sorts who believe that Jesus was really EITHER the son of G-d or one of his prophets.

Why didn't Jesus write his own book? The Bible is full of prophets writing down the things G-d gave them! Moses wrote FIVE! So why didn't Jesus write ANY? Wouldn't it have been nice to have his word straight from him?
(Alternatively, if you think Jesus did write his own book, why isn't it in the Bible?)

Peace!
EV

What if Yeshua could'nt read or write. I've never heard about him reading or writing anything, but I'm no bible scholar. Are there any stories in the bible that speak of Yeshua reading or writing?

 

[fallingblood]

What if Yeshua could'nt read or write. I've never heard about him reading or writing anything, but I'm no bible scholar. Are there any stories in the bible that speak of Yeshua reading or writing?

In Luke, there is an account of Jesus reading. However, looking at the account in detail, the event is basically guaranteed not to have happened as it simply is illogical. Especially when considering that in it Jesus supposedly entered into a synagogue that we know never existed.

In John, there is also one account of Jesus supposedly writing. John is the more theological Gospel though, with the least amount of actually history. With that, and the account only being in one Gospel, it cuts down the likely hood that it actually occurred. More so, there is no knowing what Jesus scribbled in the dust. So it isn't very good evidence for Jesus reading.

 

[Pegg]

Hi all,
I'm posting this in the general Abrahamic DIR cause I'd like opinions from all sorts who believe that Jesus was really EITHER the son of G-d or one of his prophets.

Why didn't Jesus write his own book? The Bible is full of prophets writing down the things G-d gave them! Moses wrote FIVE! So why didn't Jesus write ANY? Wouldn't it have been nice to have his word straight from him?
(Alternatively, if you think Jesus did write his own book, why isn't it in the Bible?)

Peace!
EV

I would say that Jesus never wrote any writings because his ministry only lasted 3 and a half years. Thats very little time to write anything. He spent every day of that ministry preaching and travelling and teaching in synagogues throughout Judae.

If you think about Moses, he led the Isrealites for 40 years and his writings amount to only 6 books (Torah + book of Job)

Also the thing to consider about Jesus is that he actually gave instructions for his diciples to write down the things that he had told them...so in a sense, he never really needed to write anything himself because he always knew that his diciples would.

 

[fallingblood]

I would say that Jesus never wrote any writings because his ministry only lasted 3 and a half years. Thats very little time to write anything. He spent every day of that ministry preaching and travelling and teaching in synagogues throughout Judae.

Just thought I would point this out. You make a very good point. However, there weren't many synagogues at all in Judea and the ones that did exist were more in larger areas which he makes clear that he really didn't travel to.

If you think about Moses, he led the Isrealites for 40 years and his writings amount to only 6 books (Torah + book of Job)

We actually know that Moses did not write the books attributed to him. The Torah, we know, was composed of four different sources.

 

[Comicaze247]

Why Is There No Book of Jesus

The same reason these were left out of the Bible:
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fallingblood]

The same reason these were left out of the Bible:
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, those were left out for very different reasons. Part of it was the time in which they were written. Part of it was because of the group that won out.

 

[Comicaze247]

Actually, those were left out for very different reasons. Part of it was the time in which they were written. Part of it was because of the group that won out.

I'm speaking more of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, which actually wasn't officially set until about the 4th century (if I remember correctly), which would be plenty of time for the others (except for maybe Judas ) to write stuff down.

The latter reason, I totally agree with.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm speaking more of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, which actually wasn't officially set until about the 4th century (if I remember correctly), which would be plenty of time for the others (except for maybe Judas ) to write stuff down.

The latter reason, I totally agree with.

Even then though, the main problem was that they didn't fit certain criteria. One of those criteria was the idea that they had to be written by someone closely associated with Jesus or one of the disciples. It was deemed even then that those other Gospels were written by people distant from the events.

 

[ATAT]

Also, the Five Books of Moses was already written, and the oral law was forbidden to be written at that time.

It seems he was a student of Hillel, during the 70 years when Hillel was out of power. Hillel's students railed against the conservative House of Shammai, momentarily in power. The Shamai 'Parushim' (Pharisees) were the one's Jesus was complaining about, not all Parushim, of which Jesus seems to have been a member (because he seems to have been taught by the school of Hillel).

The House of Hillel returned to power and reinstituted their liberal inclusive theology, so, ironiclly, the Orthodox Jews of today are of the same school of liberal theology that included Jesus.

That's why Orthodox / Traditional Jews can't even get a grasp of the picture of what Jesus was complaining about, he argues for something Traditional Jews of today accept, that God cares about the low man, that anyone can get to God, that forgiveness from God is free to those who repent, etc.

 

[MissAlice]

Go away and get lost mystic!!!!

 

[Comicaze247]

Even then though, the main problem was that they didn't fit certain criteria. One of those criteria was the idea that they had to be written by someone closely associated with Jesus or one of the disciples. It was deemed even then that those other Gospels were written by people distant from the events.

I'm pretty sure those three were pretty close to the events (regardless of the debate on which "Mary" it was written by).

Go away and get lost mystic!!!!

1) To whom are you referring?
2) Are you being serious?

 

[Pegg]

Just thought I would point this out. You make a very good point. However, there weren't many synagogues at all in Judea and the ones that did exist were more in larger areas which he makes clear that he really didn't travel to.
We actually know that Moses did not write the books attributed to him. The Torah, we know, was composed of four different sources.

jesus spent a lot of time in Jerusalem and preached in the temple...the gospels speak a lot about his preaching from the Mount of Olives which overlooks the temple. Im not convinced that the word synagogue is an issue for the reason that as words change in our language, the translators make those same changes. Thats generally how scholars can determine the age of documents.

And regarding Moses, what he origianlly wrote in was pictograph which is what was in use in the 1500's BCE....the written hebrew came into use in 950bce (500 odd years later) which is the only reason why it can be said that moses did not personally write them ...but he certainly did lay down the original writings which is what the scrolls were based on.

 

[fallingblood]

jesus spent a lot of time in Jerusalem and preached in the temple...the gospels speak a lot about his preaching from the Mount of Olives which overlooks the temple. Im not convinced that the word synagogue is an issue for the reason that as words change in our language, the translators make those same changes. Thats generally how scholars can determine the age of documents.

You make a very good point. We date Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, to around 70 C.E. Rabbinic Judaism and the synagogue system was beginning to develop during this time. When I say synagogue system, I'm speaking primarily of the fact that we start seeing more synagogues being built up. So it would be completely logical that the author of Mark, who was distantly related to the events that occurred to Jesus, simply assumed that the synagogue was already common in the places that Jesus taught.

Also, Jesus did not spend much time in Jerusalem. We know from his own accounts that he was against going to larger cities. He was a preacher among villages.

And regarding Moses, what he origianlly wrote in was pictograph which is what was in use in the 1500's BCE....the written hebrew came into use in 950bce (500 odd years later) which is the only reason why it can be said that moses did not personally write them ...but he certainly did lay down the original writings which is what the scrolls were based on.

There is no evidence that Moses even existed (whether or not he did, I wouldn't say though). We know that the Torah came from 4 different sources that were compiled together. Simply, there is no evidence that Moses wrote the Torah. The fact that he writes about his death, plus events after his supposed death show beyond a shadow of death he can not be responsible for their entirety.