My unanswered questions about Christ

joepistole

joepistole

Deacon Blues
Valued Senior Member
One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.
 
Last edited:
joepistole said:
One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: You have made some very good points. I also find it suspicious that if Jesus existed, and considering how intelligent and gifted he was supposed to be, it seems that he would have left some writing of his own. Yet, he didn't.

You hit the nail on the head when you stated "the apostles didn't write down their messages." That is also suspiciously lacking in substance, but the apostles were fictional characters as well.

It is very likely that the Romans were responsible for penning the books of the NT. Theory is that Flavius Josephus might have been the author of the parody of the dying demigod savior. In any event, the whole theme of Jesus's life and works is just another fictional interpretation of sun-god worship.

For further information, I recommend:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by J. Atwill(2005).

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity, by F. Carotta(2005).

Josephus: The Complete Works, translated by W. Whitson (1998).

Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, by B.L. Mack (1989).
 
wow i wouldnt know havent a clue on that religeous stuff
seems very hard to ahmm adjust to new religeons and all that stuff they believe in
whos to judge whos the messiah anyway

but i have my own strange doubts best kept to myself i reckon
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W:
It is very likely that the Romans were responsible for penning the books of the NT. Theory is that Flavius Josephus might have been the author of the parody of the dying demigod savior. In any event, the whole theme of Jesus's life and works is just another fictional interpretation of sun-god worship.
Click to expand...

-Does this fit in parody like writings :)

"The so-called "mystery of Barabbas" refers to some puzzling similarities between the released prisoner and Jesus himself. The most striking similarity concerns their names. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas". The name Barabbas can be obtained from this by dropping the name "Jesus" and changing "bar Abbas" to "Barabbas". Furthermore, the phrase "bar Abbas" can be translated as "son of the Father", which could possibly be applied to Jesus himself, since he sometimes used the word "Abba" (father) in referring to God."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/barabbas.html
 
What would he write? To see something in writing does not make it true and what would the benefit be.

He seems to have done a lot of talking but to leave anything profound on a piece of paper is very dangerous.

At this level communication is done without physically speaking- that is more direct than reading words. I read reports that Jesus wrote on the ground and i would think he erased what he wrote because the written word can have at least two meanings but only one is right.

Again i cant see him writing, i dont think he saw the point of it and most writers are full of shit. Unless we are talking about fiction and technical writings.

TBH, i am not sure but i dont belive initially that the bible was even encouraged to be read. There are reasons for this but i cannot get into them at this time. I have one more obvious response but since it is obvious i wont bring that up either.
 
I think John99 is correct. Jesus probably didn't believe in writing because it could be used against him, also that kind of thing leads to religion and other sins.
 
You mean like ten commandments ? ;) Or writings by followers of Lao-Tse and Kunfutse ?
In this point I´m ready to grasp a concept of Joshua, somekind of prophet of something, but God in living flesh to be resurrected, like Horus, Mithra and Krishna ? That far I wouldnt go from what I have studied.
 
joepistole said:
One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.
Click to expand...

2000 years ago was a different age - literacy only became more socially widespread with the printing press of the mid 1800's

its only in the last 200 years that the written word has taken the gauntlet of education, and even then, many "lifeskills" are learnt outside of the written medium even today
 
joepistole said:
One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.
Click to expand...
It's said that a collection of "Jesus words" predated the gospels, and that the gospels was based on them. However that collection is lost. There is a chance that Jesus wanted others to write it down, because it will be slightly different for each person and thus offering several perspectives of His life. Also it's better that others witness what He did and writes it down, than He being the witness of His work for it being more trustworthy in the eyes of others.

The teachings from Paul is to the members of the early church of that time, also with some directions as to how the church should function, in the teachings we get Pauls perspective on Jesus and Jesus teachings. Paul also had a strong connection with God, which can be understood by the way he writes, and thus is a reliable christian. Even though his statements regarding if woman can preach in churches has been very criticised by people today, but it was a letter that he sent to the people in the establishment of the church, and that was the law of that time. He does recognize that some will not agree to such things regarding woman, but explains that they have no other order.
 
Cyperium said:
It's said that a collection of "Jesus words" predated the gospels, and that the gospels was based on them. However that collection is lost. There is a chance that Jesus wanted others to write it down, because it will be slightly different for each person and thus offering several perspectives of His life. Also it's better that others witness what He did and writes it down, than He being the witness of His work for it being more trustworthy in the eyes of others.

The teachings from Paul is to the members of the early church of that time, also with some directions as to how the church should function, in the teachings we get Pauls perspective on Jesus and Jesus teachings. Paul also had a strong connection with God, which can be understood by the way he writes, and thus is a reliable christian. Even though his statements regarding if woman can preach in churches has been very criticised by people today, but it was a letter that he sent to the people in the establishment of the church, and that was the law of that time. He does recognize that some will not agree to such things regarding woman, but explains that they have no other order.
Click to expand...

Thanks Cyperium, but there seems to have been a lot of confusion about how to construct the church and the core beliefs of the church shortly after the death of Christ. You have several different sects that were later judged to be heritical. There was even debate about the divinity of Christ. I believe the concept of the Holy Trinity was created and agreed upon at the first Council of Nicea which was more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. It just seems to me a somewhat messy begining...with heritics popping very quickly after the death of Christ...seems like it could have been avoided with better organization...not that I could do any better than God. He needs no lectures from me about organization! I have enough trouble getting out of bed in the morning, and he created the world in six days. But it is just a curious observation on my part.
 
BlueMoose said:
-Does this fit in parody like writings :)

"The so-called "mystery of Barabbas" refers to some puzzling similarities between the released prisoner and Jesus himself. The most striking similarity concerns their names. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas". The name Barabbas can be obtained from this by dropping the name "Jesus" and changing "bar Abbas" to "Barabbas". Furthermore, the phrase "bar Abbas" can be translated as "son of the Father", which could possibly be applied to Jesus himself, since he sometimes used the word "Abba" (father) in referring to God."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/barabbas.html
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Entirely, but IMO I believe this, too, is myth. However, it makes for interesting writing.
 
joepistole said:
There was even debate about the divinity of Christ. I believe the concept of the Holy Trinity was created and agreed upon at the first Council of Nicea which was more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. .
Click to expand...

-The "other" Holy Trinity

Brahma
brahma2.jpg


Vishnu
visnu1.jpg


Shiva
shiva.jpg


http://www.webindia123.com/religion/hinduism/gods/trinity.htm
 
lightgigantic said:
apart from the number three, what do they have in common with each other?
Click to expand...

Shiva (destructor), sunset (Seth) / Vishnu (balancer) - the path sun travels, the sky / Brahma(birth giver) - sun rise.?.
Jesus ~ Sun.
The Father ~ Sun / The Holy Spirit ~ Sun Light / The Son ~ Sun rising again.
Something like that, altered trinity from other religion ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top