Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

[RevTestament]

An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative?

My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think?

[Gray]

I don't think Yeshua was looking to inspire future generations of people with his wisdom. I think he was trying to usher in the Kingdom of God in his own time.

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think Yeshua was looking to inspire future generations of people with his wisdom. I think he was trying to usher in the Kingdom of God in his own time.

How was He going to bring judgment to the Gentiles then as prophesied? I mean could He reasonably expect His words to go to the Gentiles if what you are proposing is true?

Isaiah 42:1

1 Behold my ^aservant, whom I uphold; mine ^belect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have ^cput my ^dspirit upon him: he shall bring forth ^ejudgment to the Gentiles.

[thesometimesaint]

If he did write anything down we no longer have it.

[Duncan]

I think he should write but not necessarily on scrolls, but in our hearts as per Jeremiah 31:33, Heb. 8:10

[hagoth7]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think he should write but not necessarily on scrolls, but in our hearts as per Jeremiah 31:33, Heb. 8:10

 

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think he should write but not necessarily on scrolls, but in our hearts as per Jeremiah 31:33, Heb. 8:10

I think He would like us to be a covenant people, and not a law people - so that we aren't expecting to be told what to do, but seeking out what He would like us to do, and what others would like as well, but to get to that point it seems a little written guidance is necessary.  

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative?

My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think?

In my opinion, He did not leave a mess but just the opposite, cleaning up a mess in the most absolute terms possible: He worked out the Atonement in the flesh, His primary (and I would say His only) purpose and aim in mortality. All other aims and purposes are only appendages to this.

Just as “Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples” may not be absolute or literal, neither would be the fact that He did not write (John 8:6). But He commissions His servants to teach (3 Nephi 11:41) and write (Isaiah 8:1) that which is designed to ultimately draw each of us personally to the point of His atonement.

As Duncan points out, He writes His testimony in our hearts through His light which enlightens all men, by the witness of the Holy Ghost, and by the effects of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost among those who have this gift.

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think Yeshua was looking to inspire future generations of people with his wisdom. I think he was trying to usher in the Kingdom of God in his own time.

I think He conceived the spiritual rebirth of every human being, past, in His time, and future, and carried out His Atonement as the Father of our spiritual rebirth.

[Bob Crockett]

Eusebius identifies a letter Jesus wrote. 

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In my opinion, He did not leave a mess but just the opposite, cleaning up a mess in the most absolute terms possible: He worked out the Atonement in the flesh, His primary (and I would say His only) purpose and aim in mortality. All other aims and purposes are only appendages to this.

I totally agree. Part of His teaching was to teach the order of heaven. He spoke, and others wrote through inspiration of the Holy Spirit what He had said. In a sense the Jews had made a mess of things, just as the Gentiles have done. Man tends to go everyone to his own way. Christ came to show the way to the holiest of all. Heb 9, thus setting forth order out of blindness and chaos.

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Eusebius identifies a letter Jesus wrote. 

I assume you are speaking of the letter to Abgar:

Quote

“Blessed are you who have believed although you have not seen me. For it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, and that those who have not seen me will themselves believe and shall be saved. But regarding what you wrote me, to come to you, I must fulfill all things for which I was sent, and, after thus fulfilling them, be taken up to Him who sent me. And when I have been taken up, I shall send you one of my disciples to heal your suffering and to give life to you and those with you.”

Scholars generally regard this letter as a fake. I easily agree since it says it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, but those who have not seen me will themselves believe. Well, at the time of Jesus, I doubt this was written of Him yet, so He would not have written such to Abgar.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

How was He going to bring judgment to the Gentiles then as prophesied? I mean could He reasonably expect His words to go to the Gentiles if what you are proposing is true?

Isaiah 42:1

1 Behold my ^aservant, whom I uphold; mine ^belect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have ^cput my ^dspirit upon him: he shall bring forth ^ejudgment to the Gentiles.

I was talking about the historical Jesus, not the theological Jesus - especially since we're calling him by his actual name, Yeshua. The identity of the Servant in Isaiah 42 doesn't have to be Jesus or any particular Messianic figure, but of course it can be interpreted that way.

If the question is why didn't the Jesus of Christian theology write, my answer would be different. I would say that ultimately the Theological Jesus' primary role isn't to record his own wisdom teachings - his role is to atone for our sins and reconcile humanity with God.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I was talking about the historical Jesus, not the theological Jesus - especially since we're calling him by his actual name, Yeshua. The identity of the Servant in Isaiah 42 doesn't have to be Jesus or any particular Messianic figure, but of course it can be interpreted that way.

If the question is why didn't the Jesus of Christian theology write, my answer would be different. I would say that ultimately the Theological Jesus' primary role isn't to record his own wisdom teachings - his role is to atone for our sins and reconcile humanity with God.

Are you saying there were two Jesus'?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I totally agree. Part of His teaching was to teach the order of heaven. He spoke, and others wrote through inspiration of the Holy Spirit what He had said. In a sense the Jews had made a mess of things, just as the Gentiles have done. Man tends to go everyone to his own way. Christ came to show the way to the holiest of all. Heb 9, thus setting forth order out of blindness and chaos.

Yes, even on a granular level I don't think it was His style to counter every halakhah point by point, or imitate it with a corresponding compendium of higher gospel law. I think He constantly had the big picture and terrible task before Him and focused on what He had to do and become, grace for grace, to prepare to carry it out. I think His granular level of operation was to minister to the individuals He came across every day.

[hagoth7]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying there were two Jesus'?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Will let him/her confirm, but from previous posts, Gray has suggested there is a sizeable gap between the theological Jesus (the idea/teachings that most Christians have of Jesus), and the "historical" Jesus (who walked the earth 2,000 years ago.)

Edited June 23, 2017 by hagoth7

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying there were two Jesus'?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I'm saying the conclusions we make about Jesus can be very different depending upon the lens we're using to view him. The historical Yeshua (that is to say, Jesus through the historical critical lens) is not the same as the theological Jesus. Most of the theology around Jesus was developed long after his life; the historical person of Jesus I don't think would have recognized much of Christian theology.

However, it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can accept the historical critical view(s) about Jesus, and say, yes, that is all we can historically conclude about him. Then you can also say, I also believe XYZ theological statements about Jesus as a matter of faith.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative?

My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think?

Jeremiah the Prophet also did not write anything of his own.  He had two fellow priests who acted as his scribes and editors.

However, CV75 hints at a more pervasive factor:

Quote

Yes, even on a granular level I don't think it was His style to counter every halakhah point by point, or imitate it with a corresponding compendium of higher gospel law. I think He constantly had the big picture and terrible task before Him and focused on what He had to do and become, grace for grace, to prepare to carry it out. I think His granular level of operation was to minister to the individuals He came across every day.

The key here is his reference to "halakhah" which was an entirely oral component of Holy Scripture interpretation.  Jesus live in an oral culure, and he was a Pharisaic rabbi -- all Pharisaic teachings were passed on orally, until written down and codified around 200 AD, under the direction of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince.  These form the Talmud (Hebrew Mishnah and Aramaic commentary), much of which contains teachings identical with those of Jesus.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[JAHS]

If you are referring to Jesus, He did write something:
"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." (John 8: 6)

Wonder what it was that He wrote?

I think He did a lot of writing but someone else, his prophets, actually performed the physical act of jotting it down.

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I assume you are speaking of the letter to Abgar:

Scholars generally regard this letter as a fake. I easily agree since it says it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, but those who have not seen me will themselves believe. Well, at the time of Jesus, I doubt this was written of Him yet, so He would not have written such to Abgar.

I think you're overstating the ability of scholars to see through the years on something like this.  You can't question a letter like this merely because it speaks of something in the future; otherwise, throw out the Bible for mentioning Cyrus before he was born (which many scholars indeed do).  Eusebius was certainly qualified to speak on this, and close to his source.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

Quote

Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

For the same reason he taught in parables, because language is a useless medium for teaching spiritual matters.

Everything would instantly be made dogma, "God breathed" and infallible.

Language itself is none of those things.

[USU78]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For the same reason he taught in parables, because language is a useless medium for teaching spiritual matters.

Everything would instantly be made dogma, "God breathed" and infallible.

Language itself is none of those things.

Or ... the absence of evidence is evidence of absolutely nothing. What can't be known is unknowable.

And, BTW, you are such a romantic soul.

Edited June 24, 2017 by USU78

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For the same reason he taught in parables, because language is a useless medium for teaching spiritual matters.

Everything would instantly be made dogma, "God breathed" and infallible.

Language itself is none of those things.

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Or ... the absence of evidence is evidence of absolutely nothing. What can't be known is unknowable.

And, BTW, you are such a romantic soul.

He is def a romantic isn't he? Made me chuckle... He may know this, but I disagree with him somewhat. I don't believe language is useless to communicate spiritual matters. With the right context, it does communicate. He is right that words can be interpreted many different ways, so man often gets the wrong idea, but part of me tells me God wants it this way. He calls on those who understand it in the best spiritual context to be His leaders/teachers. The Lord tells us He speaks and then hides up things. So in a sense He wants the truest interpretation to be hid sometimes. Sometimes He does not allow His prophets to speak plainly. Some things are just designed to be brought forth at certain times. For instance in Daniel 11 we are told that some exalt themselves to establish the vision but shall fall. The vision is not established until the end when the ancient of days rises up and co-establishes the vision. Therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that the scholars got it wrong...

Edited June 24, 2017 by RevTestament

[Bobbieaware]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For the same reason he taught in parables, because language is a useless medium for teaching spiritual matters.

Everything would instantly be made dogma, "God breathed" and infallible.

Language itself is none of those things.

With the above post, I see a possible opening for Yours Truly to finally be able to grasp what you mean when you say human language is a useless medium when it comes to teaching spiritual things. If you are able to harmonize the following quote from the prophet Joseph Smith with your assertions concerning the utter deficiencies of human language when it comes to effective and accurate communication, I may never need to annoy you in this way again. Here's the quote:

'“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Joseph Smith)

So how can a man get near to God by reading and putting into practice the principles taught through the human language found on the pages of the Book of Mormon if human language is so utterly deficient a means to establish good communication? And how can the Spirit of God on its own, without the intermediate instrument of human language, teach a man anything at all concerning God? And why is it that in every vision and epiphany recorded in the scriptures human language is used by the the heavenly visitors to inform and instruct earthly mortals? 

Here's hoping I'm finally going to be able to "get it!" 😊

Edited June 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Physics Guy]

Jesus became, if not the most quoted person in history, surely close to the most. He launched a lot of memes. But they mostly reached the world through the written words of others, in languages he never spoke. So why didn't he write? It's an excellent question.

The New Testament portrays him as literate. He reads the scriptures aloud in Luke 4. Perhaps this episode is a false invention, describing a more educated messiah than Jesus actually was, but Luke 4 doesn't make reading out to be a big deal. If it was an invention, it was an invention so plausible that it did not call for comment. So Jesus might very well have been able to read. Even if he couldn't, he could surely have gotten hold of a scribe to write down his exact words on the spot.

Perhaps he actually did. There's no evidence for written texts of his sayings until decades after his death, but I don't see how we can rule out the possibility that one or two literate followers made a few private notes. On the other hand purely oral tradition could have been pretty reliable in a culture that didn't have many books. There isn't really that much practical difference between careful oral transmission and a few written texts that were not mass produced.

What Jesus didn't do was establish copyright. He didn't write an official version of his teachings and sign it, and get his followers to agree to that authorized version. There ended up being four canonical gospels, none entirely consistent with the others, plus the so-called Secret Gospel of Thomas, which has at least a couple of lines that make you think Hey, that actually does sound like Jesus. Then there were writings by apostles that successfully claimed to present teachings in Jesus's tradition, especially those by Paul, even though he only even claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision.

For someone starting a new religion, it seems like a heck of casual way to run a railroad.

But that's just the thing. If you really have a big new idea, you don't need to make sure it gets expressed in just the right, precise way. The gist of the idea is the idea—or it's not that big an idea. Jesus's gospel was digitally mastered. It didn't depend on nuance.

If you can't transmit an essential gist like that clearly just by telling a few people, then once again, it's not that big an idea. Whereas if you can get a big idea across to just a few hundred people just by speaking, then there's no need to write it. It will spread by word of mouth. If it ever needs to be written, there'll be plenty of people to do that.

I think that Jesus knew what he was doing. In the beginning was the Word.

 

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

With the above post, I see a possible opening for Yours Truly to finally be able to grasp what you mean when you say human language is a useless medium when it comes to teaching spiritual things. If you are able to harmonize the following quote from the prophet Joseph Smith with your assertions concerning the utter deficiencies of human language when it comes to effective and accurate communication, I may never need to annoy in this way you again. Here's the quote:

'“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Joseph Smith)

So how can a man get near to God by reading and putting into practice the principles taught through the human language found on the pages of the Book of Mormon if human language is so utterly deficient a means to establish good communication? And how can the Spirit of God on its own, without the intermediate instrument of human language, teach a man anything at all concerning God? And why is it that in every vision and epiphany recorded in the scriptures human language is used by the the heavenly visitors to inform and instruct earthly mortals? 

Here's hoping I'm finally going to be able to "get it!" 😊

The BOM is the clearest language AVAILABLE to teach spiritual principles and in fact what it teaches you is NOT to go by words but by SPIRITUAL DIRECT EXPERIENCE.  The BOM is pure revelation, it teaches revelation explicitly and implicitly.

It's very existence as a "thing" is a product of revelation- it really has no historical evidence of its origination and to me, is directly God sent.  It IS a spiritual entity as it were.

It defies the importance of linguistic description by its very existence- history IS totally totally "linguistic description". It IS "His-story"- not my story or your story but" HIS-story"  of what happened IN WORDS.   No words, no history.

Science IS totally "linguistic description" of what others have "discovered" through their direct experience and PUBLISHED- in what?  Uh, language- 

And what the BOM teaches is also pure revelation.

It is the story of revelations of the coming of Christ and who accepted those revelations and who did not, and is the story of what revelation does for humanity- making them peaceful for years upon years, and then what happens when they lose touch with revelation- wars and nasty stuff.  It is a product of revelation, and it teaches revelation implicitly in the "story line" if you can accept those imperfect words.  It is the story of revelation in a culture without a known history telling the story of the consequences of accepting revelation and NOT accepting revelation.  It is not constrained by his-story or your-story or anyone else's story but its own story.

And how are we supposed to know this work of revelation IS revelation? By receiving .... wait for it... REVELATION!  Hence we have Moroni 10:4

But wait a minute- why on earth would we trust REVELATION when it is notoriously unreliable?  (this part i don't think you have much of a problem with so I will keep it short)

BECAUSE personal direct experience of God- called "revelation"- is the only way we can know about God.

He has revealed stuff imperfectly in language, yes and that is what the bible is and the BOM.  But HOW we know these are from God is purely through revelation.

But is there a philosophy which allows secular people to understand how revelation can be "true"?  Yes it's called Pragmatism- and guess what it teaches about knowing morals?

It teaches moral truth can be known by what works in our lives for us as individuals.

And where as Mormons- without the philosophy or the need for that, find that out?   Alma 32, DC 93- all knowledge is in its "sphere".  President Kimball "Absolute Truth" and why it is not absolute but sometimes is https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

So lingusitic truth gives us essentially the "philosophies of men"- truth as his-story and science as the story of many human observations all pooled into one linguistic mess

But only one way of communication goes beyond language and that is "direct experience"- it is what you know in your bones- what is part of you.  It is how you know your husband, your kids, what hurts you and what helps you- what foods you like or which you can or cannot eat.  It is how you know whom you love and what is important to you in your personal life

And THAT is relgion.  In short religion is NOT linguistic.  You cannot put words to how you feel about your husband/kids- that transcends words!

You cannot describe in words what your testimony is and how you know that God talks to you but you KNOW He does!!  You feel it in your heart where there are no words.

SO the BOM is the most "correct" book that can be written in...... guess what.... language!  But what does it teach?

It teaches NOT to rely on language- it teaches REVELATION by its very existence, in its text, in stories and explicitly in Alma 32 and Moroni 10

So the most correct book teaches not to rely on books- though they are helpful of course!  Philosophies of men vs scripture- but not just the WORDS of scripture which ARE the philosophies of men UNLESS their interpretation is given us by the SPIRIT.

That is why just follow the WORDS literally is doomed to failure- it is the spirit of the words as written in our heart that is important.

Quote

....a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Joseph Smith)

And what are those precepts??   "FOLLOW REVELATION"!!  

Does that help?  I will keep going as long as is necessary it is good for both of us!   I learn how to explain myself better.