Why Didn't Jesus Write?

[Tonus]

According to John 8 Jesus wrote enough in the sand to shut the pharisees up.

The story doesn't say that he wrote anything to shut them up. It was when he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" that they gave up, after which he returned to writing on the ground with his finger. I've heard some people's ideas about what he was writing (an amusing one being that he was scribbling the specific sins of the Pharisees who were accusing the woman) but all that John 8 says is that he was writing, not what he wrote.

As for the rest, if Jesus was indeed God then nothing would have stopped him from writing notes or a journal or a whole book. He winked an entire universe into existence, why would he have to make time in his busy schedule to write one by hand? Or worry about gathering the necessary materials? Or about having the necessary authority to be taken seriously? Imagine that he hands his disciples a book that cannot be burned or torn or otherwise damaged and which miraculously reproduces itself whenever needed? That isn't beyond the capability of the being who formed a woman out of a man's rib, or fed a large gathering with a handful of food items and recovered much more than he'd started with, is it?

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles, then the lack of time and materials and authority would be understandable and make sense.

[Minimalist]

According to John 8 Jesus wrote enough in the sand to shut the pharisees up.

That one has already been debunked as just another made up story.... like Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac.

[Faith No More]

Then with what writting stock, and on who's authority?

I don't know...maybe God's? He can create the universe, but he can't conjure up some paper and ensure a text is preserved?

Jesus Christ, God incarnate and savior of the world, foiled by bureaucracy!

[Minimalist]

Dripshit is the master of the ad hoc complication.

---

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles

Except that is not what dripshit's precious gospels say.  In fact, Pilate's reaction seems best described by the phrase "who is this fucking guy?"

[emjay]

LOL, he's sure cute, but about as sharp as liver!

I'd love to see him twist and squirm on these gems:

*on the 3rd day, who went to the tomb? Mary Magdalene by her lonesome, or her with a group of women ?

*did they see one man in the tomb ? two men ? or 2 angels ?

*was the Field of Blood so named because it was bought with blood money, or because Judas exploded on it and made a bloody mess?

*was Jesus crucified at 9 in the morning, or after noon ?

*did Judas return the 30 pieces of silver as Matthew reports, or not as reported in Acts ?

*John says Jesus carried his cross all the way, Mark says Simon of Cyrene carried it partway

*did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died as Luke reports or after He died as Mark reports


As we all know, God is one touchy son of a biscuit, it is VITALLY important any candidate for Salvation© get squared away on the exactly correct version of Jesus BEFORE they die. or they are going to burn burn burn in the lake of fire, the lake of fire !

Haven't you heard? It's all those lovely contradictions that makes the story more believable in some Christian's eyes... if they all told a consistent story then that would be really suspicious Drives me nuts

[Tonus]

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles

Except that is not what dripshit's precious gospels say.  In fact, Pilate's reaction seems best described by the phrase "who is this fucking guy?"

I think I mentioned it before, but you get the impression that the gospel writers were keen on making nice with the Roman authorities. As unimpressed as Pilate is, he nonetheless stresses that he can't find anything that Jesus has done wrong, forcing the Jewish leaders to practically beg that the blame for his death fall on them. He washes his hands --literally!-- of the whole affair and the crowd eagerly accepts this. When Jesus dies it is the Roman soldiers who recognize that "he was the son of God." One of Peter's keys to the kingdom of heaven is used to convert Cornelius, a Roman centurion whose prayer was answered directly by an angel of God. You wonder if there wasn't at least some hope that their new religion would be more palatable to Rome, especially if they were written during (or just after) a time of Jewish revolt.

[Minimalist]

Absolutely.  From the earliest gospel to the latest they become increasingly strident in having the jews in the crowd shrieking for the godboy to be crucified while the Romans are all making excuses.  This is a main reason why I think the gospels are mid-second century concoctions.  By 140 AD there had been 3 jewish revolts, they had been evicted from Judaea and scattered about the empire.  They were decidedly persona non grata with the Romans.  C 180 the Greco-Roman writer, Celsus, wrote disparagingly of them:

"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put our faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

[Cecelia]

Actually, it does.  The fact that the passage in question does not appear in either the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus is definitive evidence that "john" was amended to include that particular bullshit story sometime after 350.  We do not usually get such precise dating for bible bullshit stories which makes the Pericope Adulterae Exhibit "A" for later xtian tampering with their so-called holy horseshit.

---

As opposed to the rest of the bullshit stories included in the originals?

[Minimalist]

It is easier to date. 

The Codex Vaticanus has been dated through paleography to the 4th century.  It does not contain the pericope adulterae.

But St Augustine writing in the early 5th century noted the story which gives us about a 60-70 year window for its invention and inclusion.  It really doesn't get too much better than that in terms of dating bullshit.

[Drich]

um...

all of Joseph Smith's first person stuff is all made up shit . . . .

what is different from the writing of Joseph Smith and the 4 different writers of the gospel?

---

According to John 8 Jesus wrote enough in the sand to shut the pharisees up.

The story doesn't say that he wrote anything to shut them up.

let's see:
6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

 It was when he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" that they gave up, after which he returned to writing on the ground with his finger.

actually no... In the above Jesus is writting as the pharisees are trying to entrap him, He stands to proclaim 'the one without sin....' Then continues writting... Once they see/understand (akouō in the greek) what he is doing in relation to what was said the one by one move off starting with the oldest first.

akouō in this context means to consider or understand what is being said.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...G191&t=KJV

We know this because They go to test Jesus and Jesus starts writing. When they asked their Question, Jesus simply says 'to the one without sin cast their first stone.' Nothing else was said verbally to them, everything else said, and their reaction starting with the oldest first ALL had to do with what Christ wrote.

So it can indeed be said what Christ wrote in the dirt, silenced the pharisees.

 I've heard some people's ideas about what he was writing (an amusing one being that he was scribbling the specific sins of the Pharisees who were accusing the woman) but all that John 8 says is that he was writing, not what he wrote.

It does not matter what he wrote only that the pharisees did not understand what Christ had said nor what he was doing till he had finished...

Kinda like you now with what I've said or what I was doing. In that I am not trying to represent what Christ wrote only that He did to silence those who claim that He could not write or that their was no evidence that he had ever wrote anything.

As for the rest, if Jesus was indeed God then nothing would have stopped him from writing notes or a journal or a whole book.

If again that what He wanted Or if again that is not what He had done.

 He winked an entire universe into existence, why would he have to make time in his busy schedule to write one by hand?  Or worry about gathering the necessary materials?  Or about having the necessary authority to be taken seriously?  Imagine that he hands his disciples a book that cannot be burned or torn or otherwise damaged and which miraculously reproduces itself whenever needed?  That isn't beyond the capability of the being who formed a woman out of a man's rib, or fed a large gathering with a handful of food items and recovered much more than he'd started with, is it?

Again I was simply educating you all who do not seem to understand what it would take to preserve anything from then till now.

You are right in that God could have persevered anything He wished. The question is what if He did not wish it?
(You gotta explore and understand what it would take to do 'X' to understand or embrace why it was not done.)

So then if even you say it is possible for God to do this, lets look at how the last time he did this turned out. Meaning the last time He wrote down the laws defining a religion.. That would be with moses, now fast forward about 2000 years to Christ. According to Christ how did the holiest of the holy practitioners do? Did Jesus give them a 'well done my good and faithful servants' or did he blast them every chance He got???

Now ask yourself Why would God set up another religion the same way He did the last one, just for it to fail on the highest levels?

Especially when there is another way a far better way Where God no longer need Priests or prophets to speak to us?

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles, then the lack of time and materials and authority would be understandable and make sense.

It would if we never heard of him as with the 100s if not 1000s of other messiahs who came and went before durning and since that time.

---

Then with what writting stock, and on who's authority?

I don't know...maybe God's?  He can create the universe, but he can't conjure up some paper and ensure a text is preserved?

Jesus Christ, God incarnate and savior of the world, foiled by bureaucracy!

Then again, if you CAN acknowledge God is a factor then you answer lies above.