Why didn't jesus write the new testement

by Satanus 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Questions, questions, and more questions.

    Did jesus (if he existed) have in mind starting a world religion such as has been created around him in his name?

    If so, why did he not write the foundations for it, laying out it's laws and structure?

    Why did he only rebel and lead a rebellion against the old testement priesthood?

    Why did decades pass before anything was committed to papyrus/velum?

    Why did he make vague statements to the effect that someone else would start his church?

    Why did that person not start the church?

    Why was a greek educated jew who never knew jesus instrumental in designing church structure and building them?

    S

  • MegaDude
    MegaDude

    Why would Jesus write anything down? His biggest enemies were the leaders of the religion he grew up in, the Pharisees. They had a huge body of law and were the keepers of the law with its myriad rules and stipulations. It didn't do much to make them spiritual or a better person. Jesus kept his message simple enough that it could be passed down orally: love God with your whole heart, mind and soul; love your brother as yourself. On this the whole law hangs.

    I see the wisdom in that since I work in the legal field. To the making of many laws there is no end.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Megd

    In that case, his oral method was defeated when paul started writing down rules, laws etc.

    S

  • iiz2cool
    iiz2cool

    I had some questions during my last year as a JW. For one, the society often said that Jesus apostles were constantly bickering over which of them was the "greatest". I eventually decided that much of the new testament beyond the 4 gospels was a continuation of that. That's where you read about "overseers" and "ministerial servants". That's where you find scriptures that the JWs use to support shunning. That's where you read about Paul's attitude toward women.

    I think, even back then, it was all about control.

    Walter

  • Terry
    Terry

    What do actual, existing persons do that makes a legacy that can be verified?

    Art, music, literature, poetry, military conquest, monuments, wisdom teachings, etc.

    Is the Jesus represented by scripture identifiable by any of the above? Did he himself produce any of those things with his own hands?

    Instead, we have a jew functioning under an existing system who is an ethical critic. He (if he existed at all) must have had charisma and authority when he spoke. But, as in all things human, he was heard differently by each listener who, then, went on to speculate and expand on the "meaning" of what they perceived.

    This can happen to anybody. What they are becomes something more than what it really was.

    Take Elvis, for example.

    Elvis died and he has been seen here and there by fans (even though he couldn't be where they saw him.) But, we can prove Elvis existed by photos, newsreels, recordings and perhaps our own eyewitness accounts. If we had ONLY the eyewitness accounts to go on we'd lump the Elvis sightings in with the actual eyewitness accounts and discover that Elvis was alive AFTER HE DIED! Then, we might have to rethink what sort of man could do that. This would lead to another and another rethink about the meaning of Elvis' music and his messege, etc. etc.

    So too with Jesus.

    For Jesus to be an actual person (much less a god-man) he'd have to impact history with some actual creative handiwork. Jesus did nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. Those who make CLAIMS on behalf of their representation of Jesus are the ones who impacted history for real. We are dealing with their Jesus just as we deal with Mickey Mouse as the representation of Walt Disney's imagination and animation and studio productions. A legacy for a mouse. There was an actual mouse, to be sure, but--you cannot expect any realistic knowledge about Disney's actual mouse by watching Mickey Mouse animation.

    So too with Jesus.

    Terry

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    You know the famous statement by Alfred Loisy: "Jesus preached the kingdom of God; but what came was the Church."

    If there was a historical Jesus... we can give him whatever face we want, depending on which Gospel sayings we assess as authentic.

    - an anti-legalist moralist
    - a moderate Pharisee
    - a hyper-legalist Essene
    - a social reformer
    - a cynic-like philosoph
    - a mystic

    Those are just the most common pictures, but many more can be made up (from a Galilean activist, e.g. G. L├╝ling, to a Sadducee, e.g. C.B. Amphoux, just to quote two recent examples). So I guess one can imagine Jesus as a religion founder too even though that sounds highly improbable.

    As to Jesus not writing, I guess this puts him in a superior position, just as Socrates -- this is especially suitable for a logos (word vs. writing) christology.

    But there is at least one exception in the pseudepigraphic tradition, namely an exchange of mail between Abgar, king of Edessa, and Jesus, as mentioned by Eusebius.

  • MegaDude
    MegaDude

    Satanus,

    Once you start down the slippery slope of making specific laws for every specific situation you end up with an endless need for new laws to cover new situations that continually pop up. I think Jesus figured out he didn't have that much time.

    I don't think Paul was a lover of new rules and laws, at least not as much as some people make him out to be. However, considering he was a hardcore pharisee at one time I find his writings remarkable in they emphasize freedom in Christ. But that's my lay opinion. I'm no scholar like Nark and some others here.

  • Terry
    Terry
    I don't think Paul was a lover of new rules and laws, at least not as much as some people make him out to be. However, considering he was a hardcore pharisee at one time I find his writings remarkable in they emphasize freedom in Christ. But that's my lay opinion. I'm no scholar like Nark and some others here.

    According to the Ebionites, Paul was not a Pharisee or even a Jew by birth. Paul's parents in Tarsus were Gentiles. Paul was a convert. Paul's persecution of the Nazarenes and his association with the High Priest make his being Pharisee most unlikely. Further, Paul was kicked out of Rabbinical school. He could not reason with their logic; but, was always going his own way.

    Indications from his writing show Paul knew very little Hebrew at all. His quotations from the Bible are from the Greek Septuigint, not from original Hebrew. The rabbis have a saying: "All translations are lies."

  • love11
    love11
    Why didn't jesus write the new testement

    Because he spent his free time fishing?

    lol

  • Brownboy
    Brownboy

    Jesus caused it to be written, in order to straighten out wicked and misled thinking.

    Men messed it up and used it to gain wealth upon the earth. Any disagreement in this simple answer?

    The Faithful Slave

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit