Why Didn't Jesus Write?

Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
Ashley
Recognized Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Japan
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Probable reasons that I suggest;

#16

Post by Ashley » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:35 am

bizzt wrote: A) First you are correct we do not know if Jesus even wrote anything about himself but being that the Apostles were quite close to Jesus and did not know of these writings or mention these writings tends to make one think that he did not write anything about himself
To the best of my knowledge, His apostles never said whether Jesus had ever written down anything about himself and his teachings. It is silent on this point. Probably His apostles knew about Jesus writings, which doesn't mean that we archaelogically succeed in excavating the evidence of his writing. The answer is : we don't know yet. There is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that Jesus didnt write anything. It is suspicion only.
bizzt wrote: b) The NT gives us the idea that Jesus did not have a home that he called his own. He was constantly travelling and sleeping at other Peoples homes. Where he was at home they did not want him and I would guess he stayed with his Parents or close friends and relatives.
Jesus started preaching for 3 years only, before which he should be staying with Joseph (his father) and Mary (his Mary). Jesus had brothers as well. These prove that, like you and me, Jesus had his home initially. It is true that He taught a lot for 3 years before cruxifixion.

You also suggest to me that, for these 3 years you asked about the reason why Jesus didn't write anything but you also said that he was constantly travelling and sleeping at other Peoples (the very 3 years you want to know if he ever wrote about). He must have brought with himself pens and paper. Please let me know whether the writing stuff should involve scrolls, papeya or something that is quite clumsy to bring along with; if you were in Jesus position travelling so much with firends house and your baggage would be pretty heavy. Does it make sense that he wrote diary constantly on his way travelling?

bizzt wrote: d) See I don't see a problem with the fact he did not write. He was not there to write about the Life he was there to walk the life. The apostles therefore were there to write about that walk. I am sure you already knew that from the conversation above ;)
yes. I agree with this. If he pre-destined that He should not write at all or His writings, if revealed and circularized for the rest of the world and for the time after his cruxifixion onwards the preaching would be non-ideal for God's purpose, he certainly wouldn't leave a trail for you and me to have the writings. Arbitrarily as it may look, we can't find any trace of Jesus writing means up till now we are not destined to find his writings. bizzarre? maybe. If we find Jesus writing, things may be poorer.

Ashley
Recognized Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Japan
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

How do you think?

#17

Post by Ashley » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:12 am

Atticus Finch wrote: I understand the logic behind your question. The problem, however, and as I realize, it is not that it's God's purpose we're reviewing and debating but rather the means in which He acted it out.
I was wondering during the 3 years Jesus walked His way till the cross; He travelled intensively among the peoples; if he would be to write down His diary and teaching, He had to bring along with himself tools of writings;

what were the tools of writing those days? Writing existed from at least the third B.C; Records were scratched on stone, clay, potsherds (known as 'ostraca') , wood and ivory. Cuneiform script was the earliest form of writing; it was made by impressing a wedge-shaped implement onto wet clay. Later papyrus (made from the papyrus plant growing along the Nile) was used and made into scrolls. The famous Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 included copies of every Old Testaments. The pages were stitched together and the 'book' known as a 'codex'.

Is it convenient for Jesus, travelling intensively away from his home (Joseph and Mary's) in Bethehem, carrying with himself these 'tools of writing'?

You are not going to suggest, after Jesus resurrection and His re-appearing to His apostles, He might have found some places, settling himself down patiently writing down what he did and stitching them onto a scrolls, are you? Is it probable? I never said it is improbable. but i suggest a reason that if such writings exist, they could be quite minimal.

If I were in Jesus's position, hustling about healing, teaching, and praying with little sleep, I sweated so much and got so tired, and I put myself settling in a quiet place writing things down like a boyscout in his adventurous trip, it would've been the most wonderful experience I have ever heard.
Atticus Finch wrote: If God planned to beget a Son (Jesus) and that this man would be great at would through His death clear the people's sins, then why did He only allow this man three years to accomplish his worldly purpose of non-worldly teachings? Isn't it true that while Jesus' life was known to many in that region, in comparison to a major event of today's world it would have only been a mere murmour which travelled of the man's life?
If non-worldly teachings durng the 3 years is already enough for salvation purpose, I find no reason why number other than "3" is more meaningful.

Neither do I think, the longer the account about Jesus's life the better the preaching is to the people in the world. It sounds sort of irrelevant.
Atticus Finch wrote: As my reasoning and logic wishes to tell me, God would not come to earth in the body of a man (whilst still remaining fully God, etc -- by the way this is such a difficult point to grasp theologically) and only be known to a certain group of people and not that many at all before the word spread. We have so many accounts of Jesus' life; the few that we know best and then the "others" which present a totally different view of Jesus and his teachings and his life. What would happen if the Council of Nicea had chosen not the books which we know now? They had the decision to shape and define christianity for all ages to come. The book we hold now we call "Holy" and "Divinely Inspired" because an inspiration alone is from the mind whereas a Divine inspiration is straight from God to a person. When I read Paul's contributions I feel a simple human inspirational writing. Many people are not so sure about Paul. Thomas Jefferson wasn't either.

If the Bible was collected by men as they sought to find the inspired writings how can we fully trust that the christian doctrine and theology which we follow is not a man-made one and not the Divine one? I read that the final decision for the NT books was decided by throwing the books on a table and the ones which fell off weren't left in. That's probably a rumour but it still seems relevant when looking at the NT objectively. Jude: cool name but is that letter really needed in our Bible? It takes up less than a page as does a few of John's writings. It seems something of a random choice when looking at it. I can't deny this anymore.
You sound like suspecting the books chosen in a fashion people manipulated to shape a religion which deviates from what it originally means, right?

Suppose we likening the archaelogical findings about Jesus accounts to pieces of puzzle describing Jesus's life. Suppose only 75% of puzzles jigsawed together to give an account of the Bible which is circularized throughout the world and the remaining 25% is never divulged or probably hid away somewhere else, e.g. in Vatican.

Are you suggesting that, with our hands to re-jigsaw the puzzle we could get another pictures of Jesus's life which is not the face of bible as we see now a day? It is a suspicion and probably you are right, but another picture of Jesus's account puzzle never emerges great enough to outweight the present Jesus's account puzzle so alarming and amazing to realize He is God.

Suppose you are the scientist discovering Red-shift in universe, but you still doubt if the scientific results are false, you are searching some other evidence to falsify what you had found, does it make sense?

Atticus Finch wrote:
People say that the entire Bible is the literal inspiration from God. They say this even when authors of the NT are in grave doubt as to being the real writers. From my observations of the world and as I live the hermit's life, I've seen that everyone has an agenda. I don't watch the news because it is simply the view of someone who wishes to express their own view. People will often say to children, "Don't play with that kid. He stole an eraser from school! He's a bad kid!" but what is this really? It probably has more roots in some petty conflict between the parents of both children. Everything we were taught as children was based on the truths which our parents had gained through their lives. It goes in circles. We will pass on to our kids what we believe and they to theirs. There doesn't seem to be any objective reality or morality or truth which one person can say and another agree on. Christians refute other religions but those of those religions also refute christianity. Can we place a patent on truth? If you say this is the truth then how can I being of different mind follow along?

If three people lay on a hill and observe the clouds in the sky they will each form their imaginative opinions of the shapes in which theu perceive the clouds to take. Only once person #1 expresses his views will #2 and #3 conform their ideas to suit it. Person #3 might influence #1 to change his mind and then #2 will follow suit once again, ever playing the sheep and conformist to others. Only when their own views are not spoken can they each establish their own and personal objective truth. It becomes subjective once the other people chime in with their thoughts. Such is the case with religions. To one person he has the truth, to another it is a fabrication and a lie. Which is truth?

.....

I bet that every religion teaches to follow only that one and to avoid the false teachings of others. What makes the Bible different to this? Paul seems the most avid in proclaiming that message. Is it not somewhat reasonable to say that religion is unreasonable unless one receives a personal revelation of the Divine? Who can trust someone from the past who has no history?
You remind me of Isaace Newton when he discovered the gravitational force after apple fell down to hit his head; and his discovery we call... "Laws" like the Newton 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws. Do you consider that Newston's three laws are eternal unaltered and truth generally in nature and in the universe (putting aside motion in velocity of light) ?

If you read over Roman 6:7-25, Paul discovered another laws - a spiritual laws which sounds eternal and true like Newton's laws of nature - applicable to human beings of the past, present and future, unless these are of unsound mind or insane, do you consider that it is truth? even though Paul has died for 2000 years, his discovery of this spiritual law (if you would like to call them laws but from religious viewpoints, they are virtually Jesus teachings), is great and still applies to you and me, and other fellows we meet.

If what bible says is related to law which is true anytime, anyplace and for any person, it is no more a matter of "exalting a religion at the expense of others" which is political mean other than truth.
Last edited by Ashley on Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Turgonian
Senior Member
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:44 pm
Christian: No
Location: the Netherlands
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#18

Post by Turgonian » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:18 am

Atticus -- We ARE allowed to question theology. We are not stuck in a cult. The answers you've been getting here do not amount to 'Shut up, praise God', but to rational explanations. In the same way, theological debates are being held. The Bible is used as an authority.

You said other religions refute Christianity, just like Christianity refutes other religions. However, this is also the case between those who believe the Holocaust in WW2 really happened and those who don't believe that. The question is, what is true? And what is the evidence for it?
Have you already read the article The Impossible Faith (or, 'How Not to Start an Ancient Religion')?

About the Bible, this article gives a short answer:
JP Holding wrote:On the matter that an infallible being would not entrust fallible minions with a message: This would only have any legitimacy to it if these fallible minions couldn't deliver the actual message, and if it could be shown that the message was seriously distorted by these minions. Clearly the message has been delivered, for Broken Vector, and every skeptic of Christianity, knows what the Christian God declares of them. Furthermore, an omniscient God most certainly would entrust His message to dedicated believers if He knew they would both spread the message and make it clear. Certainly this too has been accomplished, for the basic doctrines of Christianity are the most recognized in the world, and though efforts have been made to prove otherwise, there is no substantial reason to think that the message has been distorted -- and Broken Vector does not show this to be the case.
Atticus, you seem to be a person very interested in studying and resolving doubts (even more than me! :P), which is why I have no scruples linking a very long article: Gospel Dates, Gospel Authors, Gospel Freedoms (the last part refers to the freedom in composition). Have...fun. ;)
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#19

Post by Gman » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:40 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:I understand the logic behind your question. The problem, however, and as I realize, it is not that it's God's purpose we're reviewing and debating but rather the means in which He acted it out. If God planned to beget a Son (Jesus) and that this man would be great at would through His death clear the people's sins, then why did He only allow this man three years to accomplish his worldly purpose of non-worldly teachings? Isn't it true that while Jesus' life was known to many in that region, in comparison to a major event of today's world it would have only been a mere murmour which travelled of the man's life?
I guess my answer to this is that it isn't the length of it that was important, it was the quality of those 3 years....
As my reasoning and logic wishes to tell me, God would not come to earth in the body of a man (whilst still remaining fully God, etc -- by the way this is such a difficult point to grasp theologically) and only be known to a certain group of people and not that many at all before the word spread. We have so many accounts of Jesus' life; the few that we know best and then the "others" which present a totally different view of Jesus and his teachings and his life.
But Atticus, why do you think God would only let a certain group know about him and not the whole world at that time? Or could it be the other way around to?? Couldn't we also say that it was the "few people" that let God be known to the world as well... And if so why?
What would happen if the Council of Nicea had chosen not the books which we know now? They had the decision to shape and define christianity for all ages to come. The book we hold now we call "Holy" and "Divinely Inspired" because an inspiration alone is from the mind whereas a Divine inspiration is straight from God to a person. When I read Paul's contributions I feel a simple human inspirational writing. Many people are not so sure about Paul. Thomas Jefferson wasn't either.
Sure, God can use people to write down his messages to us... That is what we were saying before. If we want to attack the Bible, however, we need to attack what the prophets said.... That is where one can find the faults, not necessarily how it came into being. We know pretty much how it came into being, we need to analyze however what it said.
If the Bible was collected by men as they sought to find the inspired writings how can we fully trust that the christian doctrine and theology which we follow is not a man-made one and not the Divine one? I read that the final decision for the NT books was decided by throwing the books on a table and the ones which fell off weren't left in. That's probably a rumour but it still seems relevant when looking at the NT objectively. Jude: cool name but is that letter really needed in our Bible? It takes up less than a page as does a few of John's writings. It seems something of a random choice when looking at it. I can't deny this anymore.
Again it's all speculation here again.. But if you want to get down to the nitty gritty you are going to need to attack what scripture says again... As far as the book of Jude, I really like that one. It calls on believers to persevere.. I need that encouragement every once in awhile...
People say that the entire Bible is the literal inspiration from God. They say this even when authors of the NT are in grave doubt as to being the real writers. From my observations of the world and as I live the hermit's life, I've seen that everyone has an agenda. I don't watch the news because it is simply the view of someone who wishes to express their own view. People will often say to children, "Don't play with that kid. He stole an eraser from school! He's a bad kid!" but what is this really? It probably has more roots in some petty conflict between the parents of both children. Everything we were taught as children was based on the truths which our parents had gained through their lives. It goes in circles. We will pass on to our kids what we believe and they to theirs. There doesn't seem to be any objective reality or morality or truth which one person can say and another agree on. Christians refute other religions but those of those religions also refute christianity. Can we place a patent on truth? If you say this is the truth then how can I being of different mind follow along?
I don't think we as Christians can place a patent on truth, but God certainly could... Do all roads lead to Rome? Maybe not some in Canada because there weren't any, (sorry Bart).. I don't think that the Bible has all the answers for us either, cases such as bulimia, but the framework is still there and we can bridge off of that...
Everybody has an agenda which they are pushing ever so slightly. We are told in the Bible to reject and beware of false teachings. Isn't this the one simply and major tactic in locking people into a scam of a sort? Imagine a small cult which revolves around the practice of hopping on one leg:
For me, if that agenda told me to spread piece and joy throughout the world, tell me where to sign up and I will...
I bet that every religion teaches to follow only that one and to avoid the false teachings of others. What makes the Bible different to this? Paul seems the most avid in proclaiming that message. Is it not somewhat reasonable to say that religion is unreasonable unless one receives a personal revelation of the Divine? Who can trust someone from the past who has no history?
Also can you trust someone who HAS a history? You can trust on what they have spoken... It all has to line up... Also if it doesn't promote love and kindness then I to would suggest that we throw it out... It's that simple.. :wink:
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

Atticus Finch
Recognized Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:26 am
Christian: No
Location: NJ
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#20

Post by Atticus Finch » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:20 am

I will leave a short reply until later in this afternoon after I have slept.

God would not manifest Himself in human form to leave a legacy of confusion and arguments over His meaning and purpose. For three hundred years after Jesus' death there were numerous sects of thought on several things. In three hundred years a great many rumours can spread. A week of high school will show any person this sad truth. How does one go about filtering the nonsense to find the truth?

How anyone in the world could ever trust the decisions made in the Councils of Nicea is beyond my logic and reasoning.

Example:

Crime: Murder
Persons: Mudered and Murderer
Witnesses: Two
Accounts: Four
a) One from the Witness
b) One from the Murderer
c) One from second Witness
d) One from a person down the street; 5 weeks post-crime

Now, in all sanity and respect for truth and honesty, which witness would you throw out of the court for being a gossiper, a babbler, a person resting his claims on rumour and word of mouth?

Fact: All we have is accounts of people from many years after Jesus' death. Our earliest sources are from Paul and he never:

a) Met Jesus
b) Quoted a single line of Jesus'

And he contradicted:

c) Key teachings of the OT and Jesus and John the Baptist

...........

Herein lies a real problem. It is not wise to rest your arguments on faith. When people tell me that I should believe in Jesus as my "Personal Lord and Saviour" I want to vomit. Not because I typically reject the idea, but rather because it rejects itself within the Bible. What did John the Baptist teach? Oh, that's right, repentance and turning to God. He didn't say, "Your baptism is in vain; Just put your faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and you'll gain eternal life" did he?

I have a booklet given to me by a great teacher in my old high school. In it contains the Gospel of John and some other little bits for the new believer. It has a neat diagram which shows man's sinful nature being a barrier separating us from God. In this diagram it shows a cross with Jesus' name on it showing the only way to God is by Him as the Gospel of John tells us. I simply ask, "Why?" to this teaching. God is all-powerful, can He not forgive sin as He wishes and when He wishes to?

One of the biggest crimes of the mind that a person can commit is to neglect reason, logic, and understanding for faith. Faith is key in the christian teaching because it teaches people to ignore other things. My grandma offered me a "Mr. Bean" video when I told her I was reading a book which explored how the christian theology came to be. Put on your thinking caps, people.

User avatar
Judah
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 956
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Location: New Zealand
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#21

Post by Judah » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:32 am

Atticus Finch wrote: God would not manifest Himself in human form to leave a legacy of confusion and arguments over His meaning and purpose.
What are you saying, Atticus?
1. that God did not manifest Himself in human form, or...
2. that He did manifest Himself in human form

If you are claiming the second of the two positions in my question, and then go on to claim that "God would not leave a legacy of confusion and argument over His meaning and purpose", you are contradicting yourself in the rest of your post where you describe what you see to be confusion and argument. Or maybe there isn't confusion and argument after all.
Atticus Finch wrote: Fact: All we have is accounts of people from many years after Jesus' death.
False. All four Gospels which record the events and teachings of Jesus are eyewitness accounts written by people who were with Jesus during His ministry on earth.

Atticus Finch wrote:Our earliest sources are from Paul and he never:

a) Met Jesus
b) Quoted a single line of Jesus'
Paul was called by God.
Galatians 1: 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.
Atticus Finch wrote:And he contradicted:

c) Key teachings of the OT and Jesus and John the Baptist
Which key teachings are those?
Please show in which way they are contradicted. Take care to distinguish actual contradictions from that which is elucidation in the context of God's purpose in sending His Son to be our Saviour - such as the fulfilment of Scripture.
...........
Atticus Finch wrote:Herein lies a real problem. It is not wise to rest your arguments on faith. When people tell me that I should believe in Jesus as my "Personal Lord and Saviour" I want to vomit. Not because I typically reject the idea, but rather because it rejects itself within the Bible. What did John the Baptist teach? Oh, that's right, repentance and turning to God. He didn't say, "Your baptism is in vain; Just put your faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and you'll gain eternal life" did he?
What do you understand by "faith"? If it involves a lack of reasonable evidence then you need a new understanding of what is meant by "faith" in Christian terms.
Check out J.P. Holding's excellant paper titled Fallacious Faith: Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception to learn how the Greek word behind "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof - belief that is based on evidence. It has nothing to do with the common misconception of it being "blind trust" or similar.

When John was baptizing folk, Jesus had not yet been crucified.
He called on folk to repent and turn to God. Then later Jesus fulfilled Scripture and His purpose through His sacrifice.
Where is the contradiction? We are progressing forward in time, not backwards, as we read of these events.
Atticus Finch wrote:I have a booklet given to me by a great teacher in my old high school. In it contains the Gospel of John and some other little bits for the new believer. It has a neat diagram which shows man's sinful nature being a barrier separating us from God. In this diagram it shows a cross with Jesus' name on it showing the only way to God is by Him as the Gospel of John tells us. I simply ask, "Why?" to this teaching. God is all-powerful, can He not forgive sin as He wishes and when He wishes to?
You are ignoring all the other characteristics of God. He is also holy and righteous and cannot tolerate sin. We must first be justified and "made righteous" to live in a right relationship with Him. If you are a sincere seeker in relation to Christianity, then find yourself a copy of C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" which gives an excellent account of our need for redemption.
Be careful you don't fall into the trap of trying to create a version of God that is completely nonsensical. God cannot ignore sin without violating His own holiness and justice.
Atticus Finch wrote:One of the biggest crimes of the mind that a person can commit is to neglect reason, logic, and understanding for faith. Faith is key in the christian teaching because it teaches people to ignore other things. My grandma offered me a "Mr. Bean" video when I told her I was reading a book which explored how the christian theology came to be. Put on your thinking caps, people.
Do check out that paper by J.P. Holding and you will discover that Faith (pistis) absolutely does not "teach people to ignore other things". In fact, it means the opposite.
Atticus, set your own thinking cap straight on your head and work through that paper to understand what faith in Christianity is really about.

Ashley
Recognized Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Japan
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Suggestions

#22

Post by Ashley » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:34 am

Atticus Finch wrote: God is all-powerful, can He not forgive sin as He wishes and when He wishes to?
I have read bible once; though I can't give a sermon to anyone I never study theology nor serve in church, given that this website is a platform for causal discussion I think by His grace I may share with you something.

God can forgive sin. In OT, God forgive on his own account those who sinned against Him, but His chosen people always failed to repent and drew His wrath again, again and again... God gradually wanted to give them up and leave them alone because God is holy, He can't get along with sinful people who are filthy.

Because of God's grace, He was willing to see that people can't be put right with Him, He sent His only son - Jesus - in human form to be crucified and resurrect.

In colloquial terms, because people sin because of their sinful desire in mortal body which, and because Jesus was in human form so Jesus must have the same weakness like us, His walk to the cross exemplifies Himself to all mankind in the world - as weak as a mortal body that Jesus lived with like you and me, He could conquer temptation and be put right with God, you and me can also do this! God manifest to the people who believe in Him that salvation is complete for us to be put right with God, not with our own effort by obeying the laws, but by repentence, and love, like what Jesus has done.

Because of Jesus, God will not turn away from us as in OT and disappear. He will listen to us, listen to our prayers and bless us. It is salvation.

Atticus Finch wrote: One of the biggest crimes of the mind that a person can commit is to neglect reason, logic, and understanding for faith. Faith is key in the christian teaching because it teaches people to ignore other things. My grandma offered me a "Mr. Bean" video when I told her I was reading a book which explored how the christian theology came to be. Put on your thinking caps, people.
I think you may stop writing anythng here hurling discontent complaint about the religion; and instead go to pray, pray and pray fervently and without doubt, and do statistic records of what come out of prayer retrospectively.

Persist with this practice, after a long period of time, and come back to this forum and tell me of the effect. Can you do this?

It does you no harm if you do this, does it?

Until then, I bet you would know that the faith is not without logic and reasoning.

User avatar
Icei_Nhell
Newbie Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:31 am
Christian: No
Location: Philippines
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#23

Post by Icei_Nhell » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:00 am

Or a more curious (possibly naive) question would be, is it possible that Jesus did write his own teachings but it was destroyed?

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#24

Post by bizzt » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:05 am

Icei_Nhell wrote:Or a more curious (possibly naive) question would be, is it possible that Jesus did wrote his own teachings but it was destroyed?
Would you not think there would be some kind of Evidence to point to Jesus Writing about himself? Maybe documents from the Disciples speaking about this? It is strange how some people can come up with all these Conspiracy theories just so they don't have to look at the Evidence that is straight in front of them!

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5308
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#25

Post by Canuckster1127 » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:05 am

Icei_Nhell wrote:Or a more curious (possibly naive) question would be, is it possible that Jesus did wrote his own teachings but it was destroyed?
Not likely.

2 of the 4 gospel writers were directly with him through most of his ministry. The other 2 were closely related or friends with key apostles.

Great claims of this nature would require great evidence.

Why do you ask?
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

Post Reply