Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

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...

There are no facts, just interpretations and some of them are right and some are not

That is what you just said and that is what I have been saying.

Pragmatism came directly out of Romanticism.  Just look at the dates.

Edited June 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[LittleNipper]

Jesus did write. He wrote on the ground with His finger when the harlot was brought to Him by those who would stone her--- just like God wrote the 10 Commandments twice for Moses.

Edited June 25, 2017 by LittleNipper

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus did write. He wrote on the ground with His finger when the harlot was brought to Him by those who would stone her--- just like God wrote the 10 Commandments twice for Moses.

Several people have mentioned that story so let me just say something. The periocope of John, as it is called, does not seem to be in the earliest manuscripts of John. It appears in John in the next round of manuscripts. However, that doesn't mean the story is fabricated. It has several elements that just make it seem so real. Even Yeshua's interaction with her chargers seems to have legal Jewish background that most people miss. Which makes His interaction all the more remarkable. Maybe the story was found left out separately in some of John's writings or maybe it just remained extant in oral tradition until the decision was finally made to include it. If anyone wants to talk in more detail about this feel free to bring it up.

Edited June 25, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts, just interpretations and some of them are right and some are not

That is what you just said and that is what I have been saying.

Pragmatism came directly out of Romanticism.  Just look at the dates.

You must have failed to use language to clearly communicate this idea the first time my friend.  

[Honorentheos]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 0:43 PM, 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.

When I read the title of the thread and the OP, I was going to offer up my thoughts but in scrolling through the replies already posted saw you had very tactfully posed a similar explanation. So I just offered a rep point in support and thought I'd see how the discussion progressed.

If one separates out what is most probably true of the historic person we know as Jesus of Nazareth from the beliefs, it doesn't leave a lot that we can be certain of to a high degree. But one area that the sources and context seem to support is that the historical Jesus was prophesying of a very near term overthrow of the occupying Romans and a purification of Israel in part through God's agent the Son of Man. One can debate both sides of if Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man or was referring to another to come. But given this understand of Jesus as a historic figure, it is more the case his concern was with the writings that the people of Palestine already had but needed to be more faithful to than someone looking to document new teachings meant to endure for centuries. One might compare it to President Benson admonishing the Church to return to the Book of Mormon in an age that really hasn't seen scripture production in a meaningful way in a couple of generations no matter how much one says that each issue of the Ensign is modern scripture.

Put simply, the historical Jesus didn't write teachings down because the historical Jesus was admonishing the people of the covenant to remember the covenant, and that God would reveal His arm to the world very, very soon.

His direct disciples who know him in life would have held similar views. His post-execution apostle, Paul, has the distinction of being a Roman citizen and pursuing something completely different from the historical Jesus as he communicated with bodies of these newly minted Christians over a broad geography. Hence, he wrote, others wrote in his name, others debated what he wrote, and those who read what he wrote would write in response. His first chronological epistle, 1 Thessalonians contains the same vision of a wrathful God purging the world in the time to come, but it has a non-Jewish focus and a different time-table. For example -

Quote

For they themselves report concerning us what a welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10)

In Paul we see some of the key shifts occurring. These new adherents to the God of the Jewish people of former pagan beliefs are waiting for Jesus, who Paul teaches was raised from the dead and who will have a primary role in delivering them from the impending destruction. The role of Jesus is now that of the Son of Man, which is consistent in the post-execution writings. The destruction to come is also expected to occur in the time of those being written to, which is consistent if one of the very first examples of what every generation of Christians seems to believe - the end times are near. But this never-Jewish audience needs taught. Hence, writing and calls to remember what they were taught.

I don't think the historic Jesus would have intended anything he taught to be considered different from what was in the sacred scripture of his time. And he certainly wouldn't have seen reason to waste the effort on putting it to paper for future generations given that God's arm was to be unmistakably revealed to the world very soon and there'd be no need. The urgency of preparing for the coming kingdom was all important.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Honorentheos

[SamIam]

On 6/23/2017 at 11:27 AM, 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?

Lazarus was laying down and He writed him. And I think there are several others examples where he writed other people as well.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, SamIam said:

Lazarus was laying down and He writed him. And I think there are several others examples where he writed other people as well.

Not good enough for a pos rep, but nice try

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 6/23/2017 at 8:02 PM, 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.

 

On 6/24/2017 at 2:53 PM, 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 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!" 😊

"Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, almost as it were, of paper, pen and ink, and of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language" - Also said by Joseph Smith (letter to William W. Phelps, Nov. 27, 1832). Just sayin'.

 

[Ginger Snaps]

On 6/24/2017 at 3:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

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.

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.

Love this. M. Catherine Thomas has a great essay on using the BoM as a Urim & Thummim for our own personal experience. 

It occurs to me that in 3 Nephi 23 Jesus takes some of his apostles to task for the fact that they haven't kept adequate records. So in that case, he was relying on his servants to do the writing for him.  

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

"Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, almost as it were, of paper, pen and ink, and of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language" - Also said by Joseph Smith (letter to William W. Phelps, Nov. 27, 1832). Just sayin'.

 

Hah! Thus the quest to find the pure Adamic language!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

"Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, almost as it were, of paper, pen and ink, and of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language" - Also said by Joseph Smith (letter to William W. Phelps, Nov. 27, 1832). Just sayin'.

 

Yep, thanks for that, I had forgotten that quote! 

[hope_for_things]

On 6/23/2017 at 11:27 AM, 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?

I hope this isn't too reductionist, but one reason Yeshua didn't write anything is likely because Yeshua couldn't write at all.  Only a very small percentage of the population could and based on what we know about his earthly father Joseph and his profession, if we take that at face value, Yeshua wouldn't have been trained to write.  

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I hope this isn't too reductionist, but one reason Yeshua didn't write anything is likely because Yeshua couldn't write at all.  Only a very small percentage of the population could and based on what we know about his earthly father Joseph and his profession, if we take that at face value, Yeshua wouldn't have been trained to write.  

One really ought to keep up:  http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/study-literacy-ancient-israel-was-far-more-widespread-previously-known

If there was widespread literacy at the time of the Captivity, why should we infer a 600-year dark age, especially since the priestly class, the teachers of the people, was plucked wholesale up and transplanted in Bablyon?

[RevTestament]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I hope this isn't too reductionist, but one reason Yeshua didn't write anything is likely because Yeshua couldn't write at all.  Only a very small percentage of the population could and based on what we know about his earthly father Joseph and his profession, if we take that at face value, Yeshua wouldn't have been trained to write.  

This is very doubtful, since Jesus was obviously trained to read, and was teaching the scribes and priests in the temple. The Hebrew language is actually fairly simple and was based on only 24 characters first adopted from the Phoenicians and then Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity. Since Jesus could probably read both Hebrew and Greek, it is doubtful he could not write it. The Hebrews actually prided themselves on their literacy, and took God's commands to teach their children very seriously. God expected everyone to know the law, and many took the admonition to have the law before them quite literally - with the orthodox making miniature verses to put in phylacteries on their foreheads. The Jews were undoubtedly one of the most literate peoples of their day due to the commandments of God.

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, USU78 said:

One really ought to keep up:  http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/study-literacy-ancient-israel-was-far-more-widespread-previously-known

If there was widespread literacy at the time of the Captivity, why should we infer a 600-year dark age, especially since the priestly class, the teachers of the people, was plucked wholesale up and transplanted in Bablyon?

I'm no expert on biblical literacy, but this one article doesn't have me convinced.  A lot of scholarship has been done over the years, and I tend to trust mainstream biblical scholarship.  If you can show me where this evidence has changed of late, I may be persuaded after some critical analysis and opinions of those who know much more than I do about the subject and time period.  I know nothing about this web site or this supposed finding that turns things on its head.  Sounds suspect to me.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is very doubtful, since Jesus was obviously trained to read, and was teaching the scribes and priests in the temple. The Hebrew language is actually fairly simple and was based on only 24 characters first adopted from the Phoenicians and then Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity. Since Jesus could probably read both Hebrew and Greek, it is doubtful he could not write it. The Hebrews actually prided themselves on their literacy, and took God's commands to teach their children very seriously. God expected everyone to know the law, and many took the admonition to have the law before them quite literally - with the orthodox making miniature verses to put in phylacteries on their foreheads. The Jews were undoubtedly one of the most literate peoples of their day due to the commandments of God.

Jesus wasn't "obviously trained to read".  Its possible, but remember the story about Jesus and the temple is not a first hand account written by a witness, but rather written at least two generations removed and who knows how historically accurate it is.  Even assuming it is accurate, the skill of reading is different than writing, so there is no reason to assume he had that skill as well.  

From what I've read, and I don't have any of the books with me at the moment, is that an estimated 3%-5% of the people may have been literate during this time period.  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm no expert on biblical literacy, but this one article doesn't have me convinced.  A lot of scholarship has been done over the years, and I tend to trust mainstream biblical scholarship.  If you can show me where this evidence has changed of late, I may be persuaded after some critical analysis and opinions of those who know much more than I do about the subject and time period.  I know nothing about this web site or this supposed finding that turns things on its head.  Sounds suspect to me.  

Do you trust Biblical Archaeology?  I'm a subscriber.  They've had several pieces over the past few years on the subject.  Problem is, it's hard to link to 'em.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Jesus wasn't "obviously trained to read".  Its possible, but remember the story about Jesus and the temple is not a first hand account written by a witness, but rather written at least two generations removed and who knows how historically accurate it is.  Even assuming it is accurate, the skill of reading is different than writing, so there is no reason to assume he had that skill as well.  

From what I've read, and I don't have any of the books with me at the moment, is that an estimated 3%-5% of the people may have been literate during this time period.  

So  ...  your position is that the Master's Bar Mitzvah in the Temple never happened?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Jesus wasn't "obviously trained to read".  Its possible, but remember the story about Jesus and the temple is not a first hand account written by a witness, but rather written at least two generations removed and who knows how historically accurate it is.  Even assuming it is accurate, the skill of reading is different than writing, so there is no reason to assume he had that skill as well.  

From what I've read, and I don't have any of the books with me at the moment, is that an estimated 3%-5% of the people may have been literate during this time period.  

As a general rule or among the Israelites? Those are two different things. As I have indicated the Jews stressed an education in their law, and took it very seriously, which is why the Hebraic Torah has survived down to the present day. Orthodox Jews still learn the Torah in Hebrew. What's more many were merchants, and would keep a record of inventory, sales, agreements and the like, all of which of course involved writing. Even carpenters  may have kept records of purchases, measurements and the like, which of course involve writing. Being a carpenter's son may not have made Yeshua rich, but he certainly wasn't excluded from whatever education was locally available, or from teaching by his parents.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  your position is that the Master's Bar Mitzvah in the Temple never happened?

The authors of the four gospels were writing literary works for theological purposes two to three generations after the life of Jesus, they were not recording history as a modern historian would.  The evidence for this is overwhelming and supported by modern scholarship that started in the 19th century.  This is nothing new, you just have to start researching to better understand what has been widely accepted for many years now.  Even many BYU professors are getting on board with this scholarship nowadays.  

[hagoth7]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

...Even carpenters  may have kept records of purchases, measurements and the like, which of course involve writing. Being a carpenter's son may not have made Yeshua rich, but he certainly wasn't excluded from whatever education was locally available, or from teaching by his parents.

Being a tekton can encompass more than just working in wood. His comments on more permanent forms of building, echoed also by the apostles, suggests he and Joseph were likely among the rising trade in stone construction / masonry within the Roman Empire. 

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  your position is that the Master's Bar Mitzvah in the Temple never happened?

Check out this blog post by well respected Mormon scholar David Bokovoy. This might help you understand better where I'm coming from.  

Quote

So the Hebrew Bible isn’t history. But what about the New Testament? The concept of historicity, meaning an authentic representation of the past, functions as a crucial tenet within mainstream Christian posturing. Surely, therefore, the New Testament contains “historicity.”
Wellllll. . . No. It doesn’t. In fact, not at all.
When the New Testament is read from a critical perspective, we begin to find serious inconsistencies. So if you’ve read the previous posts on Genesis and the Bible, you’ve begun to uncover a common scriptural theme. As much as we may want it to, the Bible doesn’t contain historicity.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/02/the-good-news-of-christ-historicity-and-the-new-testament/

[Gray]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The authors of the four gospels were writing literary works for theological purposes two to three generations after the life of Jesus, they were not recording history as a modern historian would.  The evidence for this is overwhelming and supported by modern scholarship that started in the 19th century.  This is nothing new, you just have to start researching to better understand what has been widely accepted for many years now.  Even many BYU professors are getting on board with this scholarship nowadays.  

The nativity accounts are regarded as not historical. I don't know what the status is of the brief account of his youth, but the detail about teaching in the temple certainly doesn't sound historical.

Was Jesus literate? Could be. If so, probably in a limited sense.

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

The nativity accounts are regarded as not historical. I don't know what the status is of the brief account of his youth, but the detail about teaching in the temple certainly doesn't sound historical.

Was Jesus literate? Could be. If so, probably in a limited sense.

 

I haven't read extensively on this topic about literacy, so I'm just echoing what I've read from authors.  After some googling it seems like there is some debate about this among the conservative Christians and the scholars, but I haven't found any serious scholars who question the general idea that literacy rates were very low during this time period.  

I would be open to any serious scholarship that challenges the prevailing idea about literacy if anyone has something to point me towards.  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Check out this blog post by well respected Mormon scholar David Bokovoy. This might help you understand better where I'm coming from.  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/02/the-good-news-of-christ-historicity-and-the-new-testament/

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/when-was-the-hebrew-bible-written/

Quote

 

The TAU researchers analyzed multi-spectral images of 16 Hebrew inscriptions, which were written in ink on ostraca (broken pottery pieces), using a computer software program they developed. The ostraca, which date to 600 B.C.E., according to the researchers, were excavated from the Judahite fortress at Arad in southern Israel.

The researchers say they were able to identify at least six different handwriting styles on the inscriptions, which contained instructions for the movement of troops and lists of food expenses. A TAU press release notes that “the tone and nature of the commands precluded the role of professional scribes.”

“The results indicate that in this remote fort, literacy had spread throughout the military hierarchy, down to the quartermaster and probably even below that rank,” state Faigenbaum-Golovina, Shausa and Sober in their paper.

 

This is, of course, a single quote from a single source, but the implications, supported by others in this and other publications, lead the non-minimalist to conclude that the captives brought their literacy with them to Babylon, and returned later with a much more wide-spread literacy, encouraged and brought about by the priestly class, in order to preserve their Jewishness in exile:  through the written word.

I understand that, especially since Aramaic had developed into a lingua franca for the entire Levant, and that Greek and, to a much lesser extent, Latin were, the languages of officialdom, Jews were heavily involved in commerce.  There's no reason to hold that they were largely illiterate in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek.

Illiterate Jesus is something the non-minimalist cannot bear to let go of.  I don't buy it.  I don't buy that he didn't read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue, and I don't buy neither he nor any other Jewish kid was bar mitzvahed in the Roman Levant.